::: Economics of the Rich :::
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> The value of money is protected by the blood of the poor, and that
> blood is on the hands of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
You are right about the Fed.
The idea that low unemployment causes inflation - this idea is
stupid. What happens is this.
As soon as economy is good, labor unions go on strike to demand
higher wages. Companies pay higher wages and pass higher labor costs
on to the consumer. The same fucken car costs more.
The result is inflation. As simple as it is.
Now, what happens when you increase unemployment?
Fewer workers produce goods and services. GDP is smaller.
Every dollar will buy less. That is inflation.
We need full employment.
More workers will produce goods and services.
Every dollar will buy more. That is deflation.
Economy during last few years was good, because there were
fewer labor strikes. That's why there was low inflation.
We need fair labor laws.
Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
Why should I pay more for that fucken car?
Burger flippers can not afford to buy products produced by
unionized workers. Economy can not function well when workers
can not afford to buy each others' goods. This condition causes
what idiots call "natural rate of unemployment".
There is nothing natural about unemployment.
Normal society should have full employment.
Then we need labor camps for labor unions.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Dan Clore
> We need fair labor laws.
> Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
> explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint. How
far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who had
people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> The value of money is protected by the blood of the poor, and that
>> blood is on the hands of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
>
>You are right about the Fed.
>The idea that low unemployment causes inflation - this idea is
>stupid. What happens is this.
>
>As soon as economy is good, labor unions go on strike to demand
>higher wages. Companies pay higher wages and pass higher labor costs
>on to the consumer. The same fucken car costs more.
Therefore, other things being equal fewer people buy it. There's the
catch: the PRICE of something is determined by how much people are
willing to pay. It is the relationship between the price, and the
cost of producing, that determines how many (if any) are available for
purchase.
Inflation occurs when the value of money decreases relative to the
value of other things in general. This can happen in only a few ways:
(1) the amount of money increases relative to the amount of other
things.
(2) the demand for money - capital and savings - declines.
In a "modern" society where money has value only because the
government says so, the most likely cause of EITHER of these is that
the central bank (government-run) has been creating new money out of
thin air (into the government's pockets) faster than the economy is
increasing the supply of goods and services.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > The value of money is protected by the blood of the poor, and that
> > blood is on the hands of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
>
> You are right about the Fed.
> The idea that low unemployment causes inflation - this idea is
> stupid. What happens is this.
>
> As soon as economy is good, labor unions go on strike to demand
> higher wages. Companies pay higher wages and pass higher labor costs
> on to the consumer. The same fucken car costs more.
No, what happens is that companies desiring to replace workers who have
quit or been fired are competing with all the other companies for a
shrinking pool of available labor (the unemployed). To cmpete
successfully companies have to offer more money than the other
companies. Since their labor costs are now higher for the same output
they have to raise prices. Increasing prices is inflation. BTW, the
Phillips curve is still good theory, you just have to replace
'inflation' with 'unanticipated inflation'.
Gary Forbis
I somewhat agree with this, Shawn, but there's also something screwy
going on in this line of thought. If times are good and unemployment
is down then what are the employed doing that production does not
meet demand? How is it that more people working results in higher
prices? Are we better off having more people unemployed and on
the dole than having more people employed and on payrolls?
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > We need fair labor laws.
> > Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
> > explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
> In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
> intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint. How
> far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who had
> people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
Against laborers? No. Against _unionized_ laborers.
See the difference?
Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
They are paid a free market price for labor.
A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
-- Michael Vilkin.
> Dan Clore
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
(...)
> > As soon as economy is good, labor unions go on strike to demand
> > higher wages. Companies pay higher wages and pass higher labor costs
> > on to the consumer. The same fucken car costs more.
> > The result is inflation. As simple as it is.
> No, what happens is that companies desiring to replace workers who have
> quit or been fired are competing with all the other companies for a
> shrinking pool of available labor (the unemployed). To cmpete
> successfully companies have to offer more money than the other
> companies. Since their labor costs are now higher for the same output
> they have to raise prices. Increasing prices is inflation. BTW, the
> Phillips curve is still good theory, you just have to replace
> 'inflation' with 'unanticipated inflation'.
Shawn, that's a good point, but...
First, I have to admit I've presented only one cause of inflation.
Another major cause is loose credit.
Third major cause is high unemployment, if you only agree with me.
Because GDP will be smaller. Every dollar will buy less.
Let's take a look what happens when there is low unemployment.
One factor is that more workers are working. They produce more
goods and services. Every dollar will buy more.
This factor drives prices down.
Another factor is, as you argue, shortage of workers.
I agree, this drives prices up.
Now, can you quantify what will be net effect of lower
unemployment? Is there any model, which takes to the account
not only shortage of workers, but also increase in GDP as
a direct result of lower unemployment?
Let's try to solve this problem.
Suppose, there are 100 workers in a country.
90 workers are working and producing 90 baskets
of goods per week. Every worker is paid $100 a week.
10 workers are unemployed to keep prices low.
They are paid $50 a week.
In this case 100 workers consume 90 baskets of goods.
Suppose, there is no inflation.
Suppose now all 100 workers are working.
They produce 100 baskets of goods per week.
Suppose, workers are paid $200 per week.
No doubt, that's inflation. But...
Now 100 workers consume 100 baskets of goods.
Their standard of living is now higher.
Yes, that basket costs twice more, but
there are more baskets to be consumed.
We can measure inflation in two ways.
First, we can measure prices in dollars.
Second, we can measure prices in terms of goods
a worker can buy for his wages.
With 90% employment a worker pays one week's
paycheck - $100 - for 0.9 basket of goods.
With 100% employment a worker pays one week's
paycheck -$200 - for 1 full basket of goods.
In terms of money - that's inflation.
In terms of purchasing power of one week's
paycheck - that's deflation.
What we have now - inflation... or not really?
If we agree on this, we may discuss what effects may be
there if we abolish welfare and reduce unemployment
down to 1 or 2 percents - and what conditions we need.
I believe - let me say upfront - that a free labor
market and even 1% of unemployed workers looking
for jobs will keep price of labor steady.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Shawn A. Wilson
> >No, what happens is that companies desiring to replace workers who have
> >quit or been fired are competing with all the other companies for a
> >shrinking pool of available labor (the unemployed). To cmpete
> >successfully companies have to offer more money than the other
> >companies. Since their labor costs are now higher for the same output
> >they have to raise prices. Increasing prices is inflation. BTW, the
> >Phillips curve is still good theory, you just have to replace
> >'inflation' with 'unanticipated inflation'.
>
> I somewhat agree with this, Shawn, but there's also something screwy
> going on in this line of thought. If times are good and unemployment
> is down then what are the employed doing that production does not
> meet demand?
Nothing, the problem is that the cost of production is rising due to
higher labor costs while output is remaining stable (1000 workers at a
factory will produce 1000 widgets regardless of how much they're paid).
How is it that more people working results in higher
> prices?
More money chasing the same amount of goods. A fall in the
unemployment rate from 6% to 3% seems huge, but with a hypothetical 100
people in the labor force, the amount of labor supplied has only gone
from 94 people to 97. Unemployment has fallen 50%, but output would
only increaase about 3%.
Are we better off having more people unemployed and on
> the dole than having more people employed and on payrolls?
Since people started taking expected future inflation into account in
making their labor supply and demand decisions, the government is no
longer able to trade off inflation for employment. Since high inflation
won't increase employment, you might as well keep inflation low.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore wrote:
> > Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > > We need fair labor laws.
> > > Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
> > > explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
>
> > In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
> > intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint. How
> > far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who had
> > people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
>
> Against laborers? No. Against _unionized_ laborers.
> See the difference?
> Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
> They are paid a free market price for labor.
> A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
get it yet? I doubt it, so see if you can figure this out: you don't
have a free market when the government intervenes in the market. You are
quite literally calling for government intervention in the market, and
then claiming the result is a "free market". I mean, how fucking stupid
can you get? Here it is again, schematically:
Government intervention = unfree market
No government intervention = free market
See how it works? In case you're wondering, you like the first best.
> Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
> If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
> Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
So you think it's okay to murder people for crimes they *might* commit
sometime in the future, when there isn't even any evidence that the
might commit those crimes? And BTW, why aren't all the rich folks who
got massive corporate welfare from the Pinochet regime "banditos"?
CeeJay
>See the difference?
One has a constitutionally protected means to represent and defend
themselves against unethical, faceless corporations and their special
interest politicians.......The other does not
>Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
More like almost 70%
Mostly through the ever increasing amount of laws seeking their demise.....
>They are paid a free market price for labor.
Free market?
ROFL!
>A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
A free market means they ( Labor) also has the right to bargian
collectively. If I can bargian as an individual based on my " free market"
worth, why can't the group of us bargain as one for working conditions,pay,
and benefits. Your "free market" allows businesses to form " joint venture"
and work as one, why can't the "Working Class"?
>
>Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
>If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
>Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the same
and you cry foul?
Craig
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > Dan Clore wrote:
> > > Michael Vilkin wrote:
>
> > > > We need fair labor laws.
> > > > Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
> > > > explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
> >
> > > In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
> > > intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint. How
> > > far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who had
> > > people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
> >
> > Against laborers? No. Against _unionized_ laborers.
> > See the difference?
> > Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
> > They are paid a free market price for labor.
> > A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
>
> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
> get it yet? I doubt it, so see if you can figure this out: you don't
> have a free market when the government intervenes in the market. You are
> quite literally calling for government intervention in the market, and
> then claiming the result is a "free market". I mean, how fucking stupid
> can you get? Here it is again, schematically:
>
> Government intervention = unfree market
> No government intervention = free market
Fine. Then why does the government interfere on behalf of unions and other
special interest groups. To wit:
1) Government laws mandate rehiring striking workers. In a free market,
striking workers could be replaced at will. They went on strike; if someone
else will do the job, so be it.
2) Closed shop laws. Granted, many of these are going, but I consider it
government interference to tell me whom I can hire.
3) Affirmative action. Ditto. If I want to be a racist fuck and not hire a
superior person because of some aesthetic reason, so be it. In the long run, my
costs will be hire, and I'll probably go out of business.
> See how it works? In case you're wondering, you like the first best.
So, it appears, do you. The government intervenes heavily in the private
sector. I, for one, want it out. Some agencies, like OSHA, have a legitimate
purpose. Others, however, are nothing more than social engineering.
> > Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
> > If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
> > Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
>
> So you think it's okay to murder people for crimes they *might* commit
> sometime in the future, when there isn't even any evidence that the
> might commit those crimes? And BTW, why aren't all the rich folks who
> got massive corporate welfare from the Pinochet regime "banditos"?
Not to defend Pinochet here, but when I was in Chile, people were pretty open
about how bad the situation was before him. Sometimes the lesser of two evils
is still evil. However, this is not the proper place to discuss this.
Cheers...Craig
---
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain - Schiller
Gary Forbis
>Gary Forbis wrote:
>
>> >No, what happens is that companies desiring to replace workers who
>> >have quit or been fired are competing with all the other companies for a
>> >shrinking pool of available labor (the unemployed). To cmpete
>> >successfully companies have to offer more money than the other
>> >companies. Since their labor costs are now higher for the same output
>> >they have to raise prices. Increasing prices is inflation. BTW, the
>> >Phillips curve is still good theory, you just have to replace
>> >'inflation' with 'unanticipated inflation'.
>>
>> I somewhat agree with this, Shawn, but there's also something screwy
>> going on in this line of thought. If times are good and unemployment
>> is down then what are the employed doing that production does not
>> meet demand?
>
>Nothing, the problem is that the cost of production is rising due to
>higher labor costs while output is remaining stable (1000 workers at a
>factory will produce 1000 widgets regardless of how much they're paid).
If the employed are doing nothing then this is a problem. Why is
output remaining stable when unemployment is down?
>> How is it that more people working results in higher prices?
>
>More money chasing the same amount of goods.
One hopes there are more goods due to the drop in unemployment.
>A fall in the
>unemployment rate from 6% to 3% seems huge, but with a hypothetical 100
>people in the labor force, the amount of labor supplied has only gone
>from 94 people to 97. Unemployment has fallen 50%, but output would
>only increaase about 3%.
Well, I'd think we went from 94 people producing 94 widgets to 97 people
producing 97 widgets. This results in more widgets per capita. Why
would their price go up when they are more plentiful?
> Are we better off having more people unemployed and on
>> the dole than having more people employed and on payrolls?
>
>Since people started taking expected future inflation into account in
>making their labor supply and demand decisions, the government is no
>longer able to trade off inflation for employment. Since high inflation
>won't increase employment, you might as well keep inflation low.
I agree. But why assert low unemployment causes inflation?
Here's a situation: Suppose we have 94 out of 100 people working.
40 people are producing foo-widgets and 50 people are producing
bar-widgets and 4 people are producing jojos. There are 100 of
each being produced and consumed a day. Now consider the
various situations where 3 more people produce some combinations
of the three items. Also consider the various means of distributing
the day's production. Under what conditions would the various
laborers get less of each after the three additional people start working?
C Post
>
> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
> get it yet?
Not if government _forces_ employers to bargain with workers'
collectives when the employer would rather bargain with willing
individual workers. A free market for labor would include unions that
have no more _legal_ power than any other cooperative special interest
group, like a garden club. Certainly a regulatory environment where
unions are legally empowered to forbid voluntary transactions between
employers and non-union workers is in no sense a free market for labor.
Steven
>Dan Clore wrote:
>>
>> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
>> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
>> get it yet?
>
>Not if government _forces_ employers to bargain with workers'
>collectives when the employer would rather bargain with willing
>individual workers. A free market for labor would include unions that
>have no more _legal_ power than any other cooperative special interest
>group, like a garden club.
Which obviates the obvious need for labor unions in the first place. If you
eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of labor
unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
Certainly a regulatory environment where
>unions are legally empowered to forbid voluntary transactions between
>employers and non-union workers is in no sense a free market for labor.
You are not talking about a free market per se but a market where perfect
competition exists which presupposes perfect information. Such a market
would presuppose that firms were wage takers. It also assumes that no one
firm and no one worker could influence the average wage. Since we know this
is not the case in most labor markets your definition of a free market for
labor only exists in theoretical constructs of labor markets.
Labor Unions arose for exactly the reason that competition in labor markets
in some instances is imperfect. In these instances the firm can pay labor
less than its marginal product. Without collective bargaining there is no
incentive for the firm to negotiate in good faith.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> A free market means they ( Labor) also has the right to bargian
> collectively. If I can bargian as an individual based on my " free market"
> worth, why can't the group of us bargain as one for working conditions,pay,
> and benefits. Your "free market" allows businesses to form " joint venture"
> and work as one, why can't the "Working Class"?
Someone has to write economics textbook for public schools.
Get this. A consumer pays the price of any product. Labor costs
are included in the price. When you "bargain" you are sucking
more money out of consumers, not capitalists.
When nonunionized burger-flipper buys a new car, he pays lifetime
savings because of those high wages and benefits.
When an unionized auto worker goes to a restaurant, he pays low
price because workers are paid low wages - compaired to his wages.
Why should autoworkers be allowed to suck money out of consumers?
> >Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
> >If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
> >Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
> So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the same
> and you cry foul?
Commies started it first, in Russia.
Hitler - yes, he was this and that, and we all know it - was actually
right on a few points.
He was right about communists and labor unionists most certainly.
That's why he was elected. It was later, when he messed up everything.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
> get it yet? I doubt it, so see if you can figure this out: you don't
> have a free market when the government intervenes in the market. You are
> quite literally calling for government intervention in the market, and
> then claiming the result is a "free market". I mean, how fucking stupid
> can you get? Here it is again, schematically:
> Government intervention = unfree market
> No government intervention = free market
> See how it works? In case you're wondering, you like the first best.
Where you idiots come from?
When unionized auto workers go on strike to get higher wages and
benefits - they are sucking money and blood out of ordinary people.
Why should the bloodsuckers do it?
Why sucking blood out of me is a free market?
What is the difference between "bargaining" and robbery?
Everyone should have a right to go to that fucken factory and say:
"Hey, I will work on this assembly line for $20/hr, because I'm
flipping humburgers for $7/hr".
Then wages will level off for compairable jobs.
Equal work will pay equal wages.
That's real equality for workers.
Actually, the concept of equal wages for equal work is
a socialistic concept.
Joseph Stalin exterminated all those idiots who demanded
more paper for less work.
Heck, old Joe was right - on a few points.
> > Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
> > If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
> > Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
> So you think it's okay to murder people for crimes they *might* commit
> sometime in the future, when there isn't even any evidence that the
> might commit those crimes? And BTW, why aren't all the rich folks who
> got massive corporate welfare from the Pinochet regime "banditos"?
Very stupid question. Get this.
Suppose, average corporation has 5% return on capital.
Now, the government did something called "corporate welfare"
for a particular industry, say, lowered taxes, and that
particular industry now gets 10% return on capital.
Guess what? Lower costs of production will be passed on to the
consumer, if you think about it.
Corporate welfare becomes consumer welfare.
This is not to say that I like corporate welfare.
I'd abolish any and all welfare, and let everyone pay the full
price of everything.
Michael Vilkin
> Gary Forbis wrote:
(...)
>> How is it that more people working results in higher prices?
> More money chasing the same amount of goods.
I know that's just a mistake. You don't really think
that more people working produce the same amount of goods.
I know you know that price of a good is about price of labor
used in production and distribution. I'd say
Prices = Wages + Profits.
Say, Price = $100, Wages = $95, Profits = $5.
Profits are a small part, compaired to wages.
Relationship between GDP and Wages paid in that year,
is almost directly proportional.
Check it out.
OK, you mean "more money paid for production of the same amount of
goods".
Then, I agree, higher labor costs will show up in prices.
But what is the best way to keep price of labor steady?
I believe, it's a right of employer to fire anyone without any strings
attached. Then, if you believe me, 1% unemployment will be more than
enough to keep price of labor in check.
One unemployed worker will go some place and say: "Hey, you pay him
$10/hr. I will do the same work for $9/hr". And he has a chance
to replace that worker. Now, fired worker is looking for a job.
Another employer does not even need proposals.
He knows one of his workers is not a good worker.
He fires him on the spot and hires this one.
Now, that worker is looking for a job.
The question is this.
Do we need more than 1% unemployment?
It seems to me that we can produce maximum GDP at maximum
possible employment level.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> Labor Unions arose for exactly the reason that competition in labor markets
> in some instances is imperfect. In these instances the firm can pay labor
> less than its marginal product. Without collective bargaining there is no
> incentive for the firm to negotiate in good faith.
The result is that unionized workers are paid twice more for equal work.
A burger flipper works as hard as an unionized worker, but is paid
twice - three times? - less. Is it fair for a burger flipper?
I'd increase minimum wages twice - if union wages stay the same.
But greedy bloodsucker democRats will certainly tell unions to strike.
Maybe, one day we will teach you a lesson.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Shawn A. Wilson
> One factor is that more workers are working. They produce more
> goods and services. Every dollar will buy more.
> This factor drives prices down.
No, more is being produced but more also must be paid to the additonal
workers. There is no effect that drives prices down.
> Now, can you quantify what will be net effect of lower
> unemployment?
Yep, higher prices.
Is there any model, which takes to the account
> not only shortage of workers, but also increase in GDP as
> a direct result of lower unemployment?
All of them.
>
> Let's try to solve this problem.
> Suppose, there are 100 workers in a country.
> 90 workers are working and producing 90 baskets
> of goods per week. Every worker is paid $100 a week.
> 10 workers are unemployed to keep prices low.
> They are paid $50 a week.
Where does the $50/week come from? Realistically it would have to be
taxed from the workers, so they're really being paid $105.56 before
taxes.
>
> In this case 100 workers consume 90 baskets of goods.
> Suppose, there is no inflation.
Why is it that people making twice as much as others consume the same
amount?
>
> Suppose now all 100 workers are working.
> They produce 100 baskets of goods per week.
> Suppose, workers are paid $200 per week.
> No doubt, that's inflation. But...
>
> Now 100 workers consume 100 baskets of goods.
> Their standard of living is now higher.
> Yes, that basket costs twice more, but
> there are more baskets to be consumed.
In the real world, people without money don't get to consume anything.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>
> > Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >> How is it that more people working results in higher prices?
>
> > More money chasing the same amount of goods.
>
> I know that's just a mistake. You don't really think
> that more people working produce the same amount of goods.
When unemployment is low companies have to pay more to their workers to
maintain employment levels. I didn't address expansion.
> OK, you mean "more money paid for production of the same amount of
> goods".
> Then, I agree, higher labor costs will show up in prices.
> But what is the best way to keep price of labor steady?
Why would you want to do this? The value of labor certainly isn't
steady.
> I believe, it's a right of employer to fire anyone without any strings
> attached.
Whistleblowers?
Then, if you believe me, 1% unemployment will be more than
> enough to keep price of labor in check.
Quit/fire rates are higher than that. Even WWII had unemployment rates
higher than that.
Shawn A. Wilson
> I'd increase minimum wages twice - if union wages stay the same.
The minimum wage, otherwise known as criminalizing the employment of low
productivity people.
CeeJay
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <3643BD...@hotmail.com>...
>CeeJay wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> A free market means they ( Labor) also has the right to bargian
>> collectively. If I can bargian as an individual based on my " free
market"
>> worth, why can't the group of us bargain as one for working
conditions,pay,
>> and benefits. Your "free market" allows businesses to form " joint
venture"
>> and work as one, why can't the "Working Class"?
>
>Someone has to write economics textbook for public schools.
>Get this. A consumer pays the price of any product. Labor costs
>are included in the price. When you "bargain" you are sucking
>more money out of consumers, not capitalists.
All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
group?
As for you "economic" rhetoric....The market will NOT bear excessive
prices,thus, if management wants to sell the product, they can cut back on
their excessive profit margin. And if you think these CEO's that make
hundreds of millions from slashing the labor force for the short term
proffit are deserved of this,then why does the company complain later of the
lack of qualified workers? ( usually after the CEO in question retires with
his billions and "golden parachute?)
>
>When nonunionized burger-flipper buys a new car, he pays lifetime
>savings because of those high wages and benefits.
>When an unionized auto worker goes to a restaurant, he pays low
>price because workers are paid low wages - compaired to his wages.
And this is his fault?
>
>Why should autoworkers be allowed to suck money out of consumers?
Why should mutinational corporations suck capital away from the consumer
through tax subsidies,overinflated costs ( to provide for the CORPORATE
bottom line, not the workers), and pillage of recources?
>
>> >Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
>> >If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
>> >Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
>
>> So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the
same
>> and you cry foul?
>
>Commies started it first, in Russia.
And I though Karl Marx was German....
>Hitler - yes, he was this and that, and we all know it - was actually
>right on a few points.
>He was right about communists and labor unionists most certainly.
>That's why he was elected. It was later, when he messed up everything.
Well lets see.... The first thing he does is ban the private ownership of
firearms and ban Unions.....Looks like he wanted a lot of people unprotected
for some reason?
Second, he starts to ban all types of civil liberties,violates treaties wich
prohibit the Wheremarcht from expanding and limits the weapons to those
classified as defensive.....
Gee, you use such wonderfull anologies......
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
Gary Forbis
>Michael Vilkin wrote:
>
>> One factor is that more workers are working. They produce more
>> goods and services. Every dollar will buy more.
>> This factor drives prices down.
>
>No, more is being produced but more also must be paid to the additonal
>workers. There is no effect that drives prices down.
Why must more be paid to the additional workers? Why hire them
if you must pay them more? Where does this extra money come from?
>> Now, can you quantify what will be net effect of lower
>> unemployment?
>
>Yep, higher prices.
Why? You've asserted employers would have to pay more for
labor but why would they do this? Where's the extra demand
coming from that allows an increase in price with this extra
supply?
> Is there any model, which takes to the account
>> not only shortage of workers, but also increase in GDP as
>> a direct result of lower unemployment?
>
>All of them.
Are you talking inflation adjusted GDP? If so then why would unemployment
related inflation be bad?
>> Let's try to solve this problem.
>> Suppose, there are 100 workers in a country.
>> 90 workers are working and producing 90 baskets
>> of goods per week. Every worker is paid $100 a week.
>> 10 workers are unemployed to keep prices low.
>> They are paid $50 a week.
>
>
>Where does the $50/week come from? Realistically it would have to be
>taxed from the workers, so they're really being paid $105.56 before
>taxes.
Why not take the taxes from capital rather than labor? Is there some
reason it wouldn't be realistic to tax capital?
>> In this case 100 workers consume 90 baskets of goods.
>> Suppose, there is no inflation.
>
>Why is it that people making twice as much as others consume the same
>amount?
OK, let's assume the $9500 weekly "pay" is used to buy the 90 baskets
of goods. As you say this results in each basket costing $105.56.
Those working get .95 baskets and those not working get .47 baskets.
>> Suppose now all 100 workers are working.
>> They produce 100 baskets of goods per week.
>> Suppose, workers are paid $200 per week.
>> No doubt, that's inflation. But...
>>
>> Now 100 workers consume 100 baskets of goods.
>> Their standard of living is now higher.
>> Yes, that basket costs twice more, but
>> there are more baskets to be consumed.
>
>In the real world, people without money don't get to consume anything.
How is this responsive? In the second case each working person
gets 1 basket per week in wages. This sure looks like an increase in
their standard of living.
Gary Forbis
>Michael Vilkin wrote:
>>
>> Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>>
>> > Gary Forbis wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> >> How is it that more people working results in higher prices?
>>
>> > More money chasing the same amount of goods.
>>
>> I know that's just a mistake. You don't really think
>> that more people working produce the same amount of goods.
>
>When unemployment is low companies have to pay more to their workers to
>maintain employment levels. I didn't address expansion.
Why would they want to maintain their employment levels under such
conditions? Unless there is increased demand the product can't
command a higher price at current production levels.
>> OK, you mean "more money paid for production of the same amount of
>> goods".
>> Then, I agree, higher labor costs will show up in prices.
>> But what is the best way to keep price of labor steady?
>
>Why would you want to do this? The value of labor certainly isn't
>steady.
Is the value of labor higher with lower unemployment? If higher,
do you mean in relationship to capital or something else?
>> I believe, it's a right of employer to fire anyone without any strings
>> attached.
>
>Whistleblowers?
If I understand this question, Shawn, this places Michael to the
right of you.
Michael Vilkin
> All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
> If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
> group?
Fair share? What the heck is that?
You should be paid what other workers are paid for compairable work.
Whatever a free market is willing to pay you.
That's your fair share.
Yes, you can negotiate your pay collectively, but you should not be
allowed to _extort_ higher pay from your employer.
When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that
poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
Why should poor workers - burger flippers, taxi drivers, etc. -
subsidize rich workers?
It's not poor workers against rich capitalists.
It's bloodsucker unionized workers against poor workers.
That's why Joe Stalin exterminated a few millions of idiots.
> As for you "economic" rhetoric....The market will NOT bear excessive
> prices,thus, if management wants to sell the product, they can cut back on
> their excessive profit margin.
Are you saying that prices of American cars would be the same
if there were a free labor market?
> And if you think these CEO's that make
> hundreds of millions from slashing the labor force for the short term
> proffit are deserved of this,then why does the company complain later of the
> lack of qualified workers? ( usually after the CEO in question retires with
> his billions and "golden parachute?)
I believe the market for CEO's is messed up also.
That's mostly ol' boys network.
It's not what you are. It's who you know.
But idiots don't work as CEO's.
Second, compensation of CEO's does not make a big difference in costs.
A CEO may get $10 M a year, but how much he will _consume_?
Will he eat a cow for lunch, and two cows for dinner?
Then I'd be first to pull those cows out of his throat.
Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
American economy is like a big table. Producers bring products
to the table. Whoever has more money takes more from the table.
SEO's have so much money they don't take from the table even a small
part of what they can afford to take. They can not consume so much.
That's why CEO's don't eat my lunch.
Unionized workers do. There are too many of them.
> >When nonunionized burger-flipper buys a new car, he pays lifetime
> >savings because of those high wages and benefits.
> >When an unionized auto worker goes to a restaurant, he pays low
> >price because workers are paid low wages - compaired to his wages.
> And this is his fault?
If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to
the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
Whose fault it is?
> >Why should autoworkers be allowed to suck money out of consumers?
> Why should mutinational corporations suck capital away from the consumer
> through tax subsidies,overinflated costs ( to provide for the CORPORATE
> bottom line, not the workers), and pillage of recources?
You are right about subsidies. I had great expectations about
Republicans.
They fucked up.
> >> So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the
> >> same and you cry foul?
> >Commies started it first, in Russia.
> And I though Karl Marx was German....
How many people Marx killed personally?
How many people Russian commies did?
-- Michael Vilkin.
D. Torres
butt kicked & Newt Gingrich was politically beheaded,
because the Republicans havee no agenda to compete
with the Democratic ideas on saving social security,
shoring up education & protecting patients from the
profits 1st, 2nd & last, rip of HMO's.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
G.O.P. Party has an agenda on all of those issues.
The Republicans would like to protect the BIG MONEY
contributors not the average citizen.
The G.O.P. top dogs want to save Social Security is
to privatize it & funnel your compulsory payroll taxes to stockbrokers.
The G.O.P. education proposals center on school vouchers,
a way of shipping public $$$ to private schools.
On health care, G.O.P. fought for medical savings accounts,
an idea pushed by contributor Patrick Rooney of the
Golen Rule Insurance Company.
If you are worried about Social Security,
which seems the safer route?
Building up the trust fund or siphoning off some
of the $$$$ to a 27 year old Wall Street sharpie who
wants to speculate on the Russian ruble?
If you feel insecure about your health coverage,
which do you favor?
Rules to protect you or rules to protect insurance company profits?
"Where Republicans have ideas, their ideas get them into trouble,"
says Democratic pollster Guy Molyneux.
So they ran way from their own agenda.
Up to now, Republicans have prospered by playing to the $$$.
Republicans are at a crossroad.
The old way, catering to the $$$, works but it didn't help them this time.
If they start listening now to the concerns of ordinary people-
whether on health care of the impeachment of President Clinton-they risk
losing some traditonal sources of campaign $$$$.
If they turn away from the extreme demands of the Christian Coalition,they
risk losing some of their most loyal grass roots support.
But they cannot continue on their current course.
It's a loser.
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > One factor is that more workers are working. They produce more
> > goods and services. Every dollar will buy more.
> > This factor drives prices down.
> No, more is being produced but more also must be paid to the additonal
> workers. There is no effect that drives prices down.
Say, 1 worker makes 10 bricks per hour.
He is paid $10/hr, or $1 for 1 brick.
2 workers will make 20 bricks per hour.
They will be paid $20/hr, or the same $1 per brick.
Labor costs are the same. Productivity is the same.
Price of bricks should be the same.
Nothing changed, right?
You know it's wrong. Supply of bricks changed.
Higher supply drives prices down.
What will happen if we abolish welfare and put them to work?
Those with brains may be trained to build houses, $10/hr.
Those without brains will make bricks, $7/hr.
Supply of real estate will go up.
Real estate prices should go down.
Am I right? Check it out, Shawn.
> > Let's try to solve this problem.
> > Suppose, there are 100 workers in a country.
> > 90 workers are working and producing 90 baskets
> > of goods per week. Every worker is paid $100 a week.
> > 10 workers are unemployed to keep prices low.
> > They are paid $50 a week.
> Where does the $50/week come from? Realistically it would have to be
> taxed from the workers, so they're really being paid $105.56 before
> taxes.
No problem. They are paid $100 after taxes.
Unemployed are paid a half of that.
Employed are taxed to support unemployed.
> > In this case 100 workers consume 90 baskets of goods.
> > Suppose, there is no inflation.
> Why is it that people making twice as much as others consume the same
> amount?
Shawn, since 90 workers produce 90 baskets of goods, 100 workers
- 90 employed and 10 unemployed - can consume 90 baskets.
Employed consume more, unemployed less, but on average
they consume 0.9 baskets per nose.
> > Suppose now all 100 workers are working.
> > They produce 100 baskets of goods per week.
> > Suppose, workers are paid $200 per week.
> > No doubt, that's inflation. But...
> > Now 100 workers consume 100 baskets of goods.
> > Their standard of living is now higher.
> > Yes, that basket costs twice more, but
> > there are more baskets to be consumed.
> In the real world, people without money don't get to consume anything.
Shawn, that's misunderstanding.
Now all 100 workers are working and producing 100 baskets of goods.
My position is that 100 workers will consume 100 baskets of goods,
regardless of how much they are paid.
The more they are paid the higher prices of the baskets, right?
No matter how much paper the workers are paid, the society can not
consume more than it can produce.
You argue the point economics textbooks are all describing.
Lower unemployment should increase inflation.
I believe that's wrong.
My point - once again.
Full employment will increase GDP. We will consume more.
Paper wages - higher or lower - are not as important.
Can we agree on this?
Unemployment is a big problem, and I want you to discuss it
until we both agree. The beauty of this problem is that everything
about it can be pretty much calculated.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> Why? You've asserted employers would have to pay more for
> labor but why would they do this? Where's the extra demand
> coming from that allows an increase in price with this extra
> supply?
Gary, that's a second cause of inflation - loose credit.
The banking system is lending money easily to individuals and
businesses. That additional money injected into the economy
increases purchasing power of businesses and individuals.
Say, a bank is willing to lend money to build my new house.
When credit was tight, identical house was built for $100,000.
Now the bank is willing to lend money to me, to you, and to Shawn.
The construction company says: "OK, folks, $105,000. Firm."
I will wait till recession. Now you decide who will pay up.
If one of you will decide to pay $105,000 then construction
company has additional $5,000 to pay extra to it's workers.
That's how wages go up. That's where money comes from.
-- Michael Vilkin
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> to privatize it & funnel your compulsory payroll taxes to stockbrokers.
Yes, that's wrong. Not stockbrokers, that's bullshit.
A stockbroker will get $30 for a transaction to buy a controlling
interest in a corporation. Government will control economy.
> The G.O.P. education proposals center on school vouchers,
> a way of shipping public $$$ to private schools.
Public or private - that's not a problem.
The real problem is that public school teachers are unionized.
You cann't fire an idiot teacher. S/he is protected by the union.
Fire every year 10% of the worst teachers - and then see
what will happen in a few years.
It's conspiracy of the democRats.
Unionized teachers are all democRats.
They teach children that workers are supposed to get higher wages.
What happens when both minimum wages and union wages go up in step?
Nothing, really. More paper for the same shit.
When dumbed down children grow, they vote for democRats.
DemocRats get elected to increase taxes and to loot the money.
> On health care, G.O.P. fought for medical savings accounts,
> an idea pushed by contributor Patrick Rooney of the
> Golen Rule Insurance Company.
I'd create government health care.
Doctors - most of them democRats - are looting too much
money from Medicaid and Medicare.
They just send bills to the government, and government just
pays. Time to cut off the oxigen line for democRats.
> If you are worried about Social Security,
> which seems the safer route?
Abolish welfare. Put the bums to make bricks.
Buy a cheap house. SS pension is enough for food.
If democRats object about welfare, put the Rats
in labor camps to make bricks.
If we put one million democRats to make bricks,
and another million democRats to lay bricks - by the
year 2000 every retiree will own a nice brick house.
> Building up the trust fund or siphoning off some
> of the $$$$ to a 27 year old Wall Street sharpie who
> wants to speculate on the Russian ruble?
> If you feel insecure about your health coverage,
> which do you favor?
Build government hospitals out of brick.
Time to put democRats to work.
> Republicans are at a crossroad.
> The old way, catering to the $$$, works but it didn't help them this time.
> If they start listening now to the concerns of ordinary people-
> whether on health care of the impeachment of President Clinton-they risk
> losing some traditonal sources of campaign $$$$.
> If they turn away from the extreme demands of the Christian Coalition,they
> risk losing some of their most loyal grass roots support.
> But they cannot continue on their current course.
> It's a loser.
Antiabortion policy is a loser, not a Cristian Coalition.
There are too many disfunctional families. Drugs, alcohol, crime.
I'd advise them all to do abortions. Why?
Why do we need a few more millions of professional welfare
recipients? To vote for bloodsucker democRats?
I'd castrate and sterilize some of them, let alone abortions.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Gary Forbis
>CeeJay wrote:
>
>> All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
>> If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
>> group?
>
>Fair share? What the heck is that?
>You should be paid what other workers are paid for compairable work.
>Whatever a free market is willing to pay you.
>That's your fair share.
>
>Yes, you can negotiate your pay collectively, but you should not be
>allowed to _extort_ higher pay from your employer.
>When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that
>poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
No poor worker is forced to buy a car.
>Why should poor workers - burger flippers, taxi drivers, etc. -
>subsidize rich workers?
They shouldn't but neither should they be subsidized. If union members
price their industry out of the market then the industry dies. I don't
believe the right to unionize should entail the government doing anything
but enforcing contracts. If the union and the company agree not to
hire nonunion labor then such contract should be enforced but if no
such contract is made then the government should stay out of it.
I know this isn't the way it works; it's the way I believe it should work.
>It's not poor workers against rich capitalists.
Yes it is.
>It's bloodsucker unionized workers against poor workers.
Sometimes it's poor union workers against rich union workers.
A lot of times pilots do not have simpathy strikes when the
other airline laborers strike but these other laborers are often
let go or strike when the pilots strike.
>That's why Joe Stalin exterminated a few millions of idiots.
>
>> As for you "economic" rhetoric....The market will NOT bear excessive
>> prices,thus, if management wants to sell the product, they can cut back
on
>> their excessive profit margin.
>
>Are you saying that prices of American cars would be the same
>if there were a free labor market?
Are you saying the price would significantly drop if nonunion labor was
used?
>> And if you think these CEO's that make
>> hundreds of millions from slashing the labor force for the short term
>> proffit are deserved of this,then why does the company complain later of
>> the lack of qualified workers? ( usually after the CEO in question
retires
>> with his billions and "golden parachute?)
>
>I believe the market for CEO's is messed up also.
>That's mostly ol' boys network.
>It's not what you are. It's who you know.
Good. What's your solution to the CEO problem?
>But idiots don't work as CEO's.
Are you saying auto workers are idiots?
>Second, compensation of CEO's does not make a big difference in costs.
Does an individual laborer make a big difference in the price of a car?
>A CEO may get $10 M a year, but how much he will _consume_?
>Will he eat a cow for lunch, and two cows for dinner?
>Then I'd be first to pull those cows out of his throat.
What does consumption have to do with the cost of CEOs?
A CEO might waste his or her money on gilded toilets and gelded ponies.
A CEO doesn't have to have a cow to spend money.
>Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
And what we produce.
>American economy is like a big table. Producers bring products
>to the table. Whoever has more money takes more from the table.
But our standard of living isn't much affected by producing what
CEOs consume.
>SEO's have so much money they don't take from the table even a small
>part of what they can afford to take. They can not consume so much.
Part of what the consume is the present value of future revenue streams.
They buy stocks and bonds and land.
>That's why CEO's don't eat my lunch.
>Unionized workers do. There are too many of them.
But the CEO has enough money to keep you producing things you
do not consume. If you'd produce your lunch no unionized worker
would eat it.
>> >When nonunionized burger-flipper buys a new car, he pays lifetime
>> >savings because of those high wages and benefits.
>> >When an unionized auto worker goes to a restaurant, he pays low
>> >price because workers are paid low wages - compaired to his wages.
>
>> And this is his fault?
>
>If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to
>the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
If the burger flippers think unions would increase their wages why
don't they unionize?
>But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
>Whose fault it is?
I've seen unions bargain to limit their size. I don't think this is fair.
It's one thing to bargain with a company to only hire union members.
It's quite another to limit union membership.
>> >Why should autoworkers be allowed to suck money out of consumers?
>
>> Why should mutinational corporations suck capital away from the
>> consumer through tax subsidies,overinflated costs ( to provide for the
>> CORPORATE bottom line, not the workers), and pillage of recources?
>
>You are right about subsidies. I had great expectations about
>Republicans.
>They fucked up.
>
>> >> So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the
>> >> same and you cry foul?
>
>> >Commies started it first, in Russia.
I don't think so. Killing one's opposition has a long history.
>> And I though Karl Marx was German....
>
>How many people Marx killed personally?
> How many people Russian commies did?
I'm not sure. Did Russian commies kill anyone or did
some Russians kill under the commie banner?
Gary Forbis
Michael, that's why I'm not in favor of loose credit. I believe
the money supply should be allowed to increase with real GDP
but not sufficiently to cause inflation. An increase in the cost
of housing should be offset by a decrease in the price of other
tracked goods.
If the FED plays the economy like baseline budgeting inflation
won't happen and employment increases only to the extent
production is fit to consumption.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>
> > Michael Vilkin wrote:
>
> > > One factor is that more workers are working. They produce more
> > > goods and services. Every dollar will buy more.
> > > This factor drives prices down.
>
> > No, more is being produced but more also must be paid to the additonal
> > workers. There is no effect that drives prices down.
>
> Say, 1 worker makes 10 bricks per hour.
> He is paid $10/hr, or $1 for 1 brick.
> 2 workers will make 20 bricks per hour.
> They will be paid $20/hr, or the same $1 per brick.
> Labor costs are the same. Productivity is the same.
> Price of bricks should be the same.
> Nothing changed, right?
>
> You know it's wrong. Supply of bricks changed.
> Higher supply drives prices down.
You're missing the point. Let's say we have 100 people and 100 jobs.
Additionally, let's say that any person without a job will spend one
period looking before finding another. Now, say that in any given
period 3 people will get fed up with their current job and quit, while
another 1 will be fired for cause. We have a government that needs
unemployment statistics, so each period they call everyone up and ask
them if they have a job. On average, 4 people will say no, the ones who
quit/were fired last period and haven't found another yet. That 4%
unemployed we find every period is called 'structural unemployment' and
exists even when there are jobs for everyone. BTW, 'full employment'
for this economy would be 96 workers. With 96 workers there will be 96
units of output each period. If the workers are paid $1 per period,
there will be $95 chasing 95 goods and the price will be $1 per good.
If one extra person could be hired for $1 extra, then there would be $96
chasing 96 goods and the price would still be $1 per good. But for
there to be an extra worker, one of the workers who would have quit has
to be motivated to stay. So say he's paid an extra cent. But now the
other workers want parity with him, so they have to be aid an extra cent
too. Now there's $96.96 chasing 96 goods, the price per good has gone
up to $1.01 and we have inflation.
>
> What will happen if we abolish welfare and put them to work?
> Those with brains may be trained to build houses, $10/hr.
> Those without brains will make bricks, $7/hr.
> Supply of real estate will go up.
> Real estate prices should go down.
> Am I right? Check it out, Shawn.
I suspect you mean 'houses', the supply of real estate was fixed
billions of years ago.
>
> > > Let's try to solve this problem.
> > > Suppose, there are 100 workers in a country.
> > > 90 workers are working and producing 90 baskets
> > > of goods per week. Every worker is paid $100 a week.
> > > 10 workers are unemployed to keep prices low.
> > > They are paid $50 a week.
None of your examples have anything to do with inflation or labor
markets.
> You argue the point economics textbooks are all describing.
> Lower unemployment should increase inflation.
> I believe that's wrong.
Like I've said before: do you believe you know better than all those
trained and experienced in the field?
>
> My point - once again.
> Full employment will increase GDP. We will consume more.
> Paper wages - higher or lower - are not as important.
> Can we agree on this?
Yes.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote in message <3643CC3D...@uic.edu>...
> >Michael Vilkin wrote:
> >
> >> One factor is that more workers are working. They produce more
> >> goods and services. Every dollar will buy more.
> >> This factor drives prices down.
> >
> >No, more is being produced but more also must be paid to the additonal
> >workers. There is no effect that drives prices down.
>
> if you must pay them more? Where does this extra money come from?
From the extra money that's being charged people to buy the goods. The
people have this extra money because they're being paid more. Looks
awfully circular, doesn't it?
>
> >> Now, can you quantify what will be net effect of lower
> >> unemployment?
> >
> >Yep, higher prices.
>
> Why? You've asserted employers would have to pay more for
> labor but why would they do this?
They pay more or lose workers to other firms.
Where's the extra demand
> coming from that allows an increase in price with this extra
> supply?
For employment driven inflation there has to be some factor increasing
labor demand, be it the government, or foreigners, or whatever.
>
> > Is there any model, which takes to the account
> >> not only shortage of workers, but also increase in GDP as
> >> a direct result of lower unemployment?
> >
> >All of them.
>
> Are you talking inflation adjusted GDP? If so then why would unemployment
> related inflation be bad?
Inflation coexists with interst rate uncertainty which reduces
investment. That's the primary effect. There is also a deadweight loss
from inflation, but it's pretty small.
> >Where does the $50/week come from? Realistically it would have to be
> >taxed from the workers, so they're really being paid $105.56 before
> >taxes.
>
> Why not take the taxes from capital rather than labor? Is there some
> reason it wouldn't be realistic to tax capital?
Because taxing capital discourages capital accumulation and reduces
everyone's wages.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote in message <364281ED...@uic.edu>...
> >Gary Forbis wrote:
> >
> >> >No, what happens is that companies desiring to replace workers who
> >> >have quit or been fired are competing with all the other companies for a
> >> >shrinking pool of available labor (the unemployed). To cmpete
> >> >successfully companies have to offer more money than the other
> >> >companies. Since their labor costs are now higher for the same output
> >> >they have to raise prices. Increasing prices is inflation. BTW, the
> >> >Phillips curve is still good theory, you just have to replace
> >> >'inflation' with 'unanticipated inflation'.
> >>
> >> I somewhat agree with this, Shawn, but there's also something screwy
> >> going on in this line of thought. If times are good and unemployment
> >> is down then what are the employed doing that production does not
> >> meet demand?
> >
> >Nothing, the problem is that the cost of production is rising due to
> >higher labor costs while output is remaining stable (1000 workers at a
> >factory will produce 1000 widgets regardless of how much they're paid).
>
> If the employed are doing nothing then this is a problem. Why is
> output remaining stable when unemployment is down?
OK, here's an example I used in another post:
Shawn A. Wilson
> >When unemployment is low companies have to pay more to their workers to
> >maintain employment levels. I didn't address expansion.
>
> Why would they want to maintain their employment levels under such
> conditions? Unless there is increased demand the product can't
> command a higher price at current production levels.
Low unemployment means that labor demand is increasing. Just keeping
current staffing levels and output will cost more then. Workers will
have to be paid more, prices will have to be higher to pay the workers.
The extra money the workers will have will allow higher prices to be
charged.
>
> >> OK, you mean "more money paid for production of the same amount of
> >> goods".
> >> Then, I agree, higher labor costs will show up in prices.
> >> But what is the best way to keep price of labor steady?
> >
> >Why would you want to do this? The value of labor certainly isn't
> >steady.
>
> Is the value of labor higher with lower unemployment? If higher,
> do you mean in relationship to capital or something else?
Umnemployment falls BECAUSE labor has increased in relative value,
that's why more people are being hired in the first place.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>CeeJay wrote:
>
>> All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
>> If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
>> group?
>
>Fair share? What the heck is that?
>You should be paid what other workers are paid for compairable work.
>Whatever a free market is willing to pay you.
>That's your fair share.
>
>Yes, you can negotiate your pay collectively, but you should not be
>allowed to _extort_ higher pay from your employer.
You should not be able to require the employer to negotiate with the
collective. The employer should be free to negotiate with available
willing collectives, or with available willing individuals, or with
some mixture thereof according to his own perception of his own best
interests.
In most of the US today, if the workers at a particular place of
business vote - by majority vote - to negotiate collectively, the
employer has a choice of negotiating with THAT collective, or closing
the business. The employees who voted against the collective have a
choice of paying tribute to the collective, or terminating their labor
contract and finding another job elsewhere.
>When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that
>poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
>Why should poor workers - burger flippers, taxi drivers, etc. -
>subsidize rich workers?
>
>It's not poor workers against rich capitalists.
>It's bloodsucker unionized workers against poor workers.
>That's why Joe Stalin exterminated a few millions of idiots.
>
>> As for you "economic" rhetoric....The market will NOT bear excessive
>> prices,thus, if management wants to sell the product, they can cut back on
>> their excessive profit margin.
>
>Are you saying that prices of American cars would be the same
>if there were a free labor market?
>
>> And if you think these CEO's that make
>> hundreds of millions from slashing the labor force for the short term
>> proffit are deserved of this,then why does the company complain later of the
>> lack of qualified workers? ( usually after the CEO in question retires with
>> his billions and "golden parachute?)
>
>I believe the market for CEO's is messed up also.
>That's mostly ol' boys network.
>It's not what you are. It's who you know.
>
>But idiots don't work as CEO's.
>Second, compensation of CEO's does not make a big difference in costs.
>A CEO may get $10 M a year, but how much he will _consume_?
>Will he eat a cow for lunch, and two cows for dinner?
>Then I'd be first to pull those cows out of his throat.
>
>Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
>American economy is like a big table. Producers bring products
>to the table. Whoever has more money takes more from the table.
>
>SEO's have so much money they don't take from the table even a small
>part of what they can afford to take. They can not consume so much.
>That's why CEO's don't eat my lunch.
>Unionized workers do. There are too many of them.
>
>> >When nonunionized burger-flipper buys a new car, he pays lifetime
>> >savings because of those high wages and benefits.
>> >When an unionized auto worker goes to a restaurant, he pays low
>> >price because workers are paid low wages - compaired to his wages.
>
>> And this is his fault?
>
>If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to
>the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
>But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
>Whose fault it is?
>
>> >Why should autoworkers be allowed to suck money out of consumers?
>
>> Why should mutinational corporations suck capital away from the consumer
>> through tax subsidies,overinflated costs ( to provide for the CORPORATE
>> bottom line, not the workers), and pillage of recources?
>
>You are right about subsidies. I had great expectations about
>Republicans.
>They fucked up.
>
>> >> So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the
>> >> same and you cry foul?
>
>> >Commies started it first, in Russia.
>
>> And I though Karl Marx was German....
>
>How many people Marx killed personally?
> How many people Russian commies did?
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
CeeJay
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <3644B3...@hotmail.com>...
>CeeJay wrote:
>
>> All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
>> If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
>> group?
>
>Fair share? What the heck is that?
If you can't figure this out on your own,then nothing I,or anyone else say's
will fit into your comprehension curve....I'm truly sorry for that.
>You should be paid what other workers are paid for compairable work.
And what basis do you have for that?
And who get's to define "comparable"?
>Whatever a free market is willing to pay you.
>That's your fair share.
And the free market is willing to pay UNION WAGES!!!
(Poeple still buy Union made product,both here and abroad)
(Also note that most Europeans have Unions <Mercedes,Volkswagen,Renault,
Wurtshoff....et all...>)
>
>Yes, you can negotiate your pay collectively, but you should not be
>allowed to _extort_ higher pay from your employer.
And allow the employer to extort slave wages from you?
>When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that
>poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
This only shows that they should Unionize,so they can afford the "Fucking"
car....The UAW doesn't extort unreasonable wages from the Big 3....If they
did, why are the "big 3" making record breaking priffits every year? Why
haven't they priced themselves out of existance?
>Why should poor workers - burger flippers, taxi drivers, etc. -
>subsidize rich workers?
Don't you mean why should the subsidize rich corporate critters
>
>It's not poor workers against rich capitalists.
Usually.
>It's bloodsucker unionized workers against poor workers.
Sounds like sour grapes....But if you want to give back a portion of your
wages that you feel you haven't earned, go right ahead.....
>That's why Joe Stalin exterminated a few millions of idiots.
Nah...Tolatarians are just tolitarians.....Stalin offed anyone he thought
was a threat or against him..
>
>> As for you "economic" rhetoric....The market will NOT bear excessive
>> prices,thus, if management wants to sell the product, they can cut back
on
>> their excessive profit margin.
>
>Are you saying that prices of American cars would be the same
>if there were a free labor market?
They're free right now...Oh, but you mean AFTER they kill all the
unionist?Just nbefore they kill off those religions that aren't the same as
the one they ( the business elite) they practice, and right after they
confiscate al the guns from the "Unionist" and who ever else they oppose?
No wonder you like Hitler so much!
>
>> And if you think these CEO's that make
>> hundreds of millions from slashing the labor force for the short term
>> proffit are deserved of this,then why does the company complain later of
the
>> lack of qualified workers? ( usually after the CEO in question retires
with
>> his billions and "golden parachute?)
>
>I believe the market for CEO's is messed up also.
>That's mostly ol' boys network.
>It's not what you are. It's who you know.
Then why condem somebody for trying to level the playing field?
>
>But idiots don't work as CEO's.
GOOD JOKE!
>Second, compensation of CEO's does not make a big difference in costs.
Your eyes must be brown by now?
>A CEO may get $10 M a year, but how much he will _consume_?
What he doesn't, he can have the estate taxes eliminated to pass it out
amongst his other idiot relatives....
>Will he eat a cow for lunch, and two cows for dinner?
>Then I'd be first to pull those cows out of his throat.
Start pullin'
>
>Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
Union workers are paid 29% more on average than their non union
counterparts.They are 26% more productive on average,however....
Your begrudging someone 3%?
>American economy is like a big table. Producers bring products
>to the table. Whoever has more money takes more from the table.
>
>SEO's have so much money they don't take from the table even a small
>part of what they can afford to take. They can not consume so much.
Most don't bother with the billions of stoch options till they leave...
But how can you justify a Corporate Critter (CC) making 42% more than the
average worker in the sixties,when worker production was low, to 250+ % more
than the average worker,when production has INCREASED ?
You've never suffered through a boring econ ( macro-or-micro) apparently.
>That's why CEO's don't eat my lunch.
No....That's why you don't eat his.
>Unionized workers do.
Not!
There are too many of them.
According to DOL, the unionized workforce is 13.75%, down from
35% in the late 50's/early 60's. Why does corporate America fear us so?
>
>> >When nonunionized burger-flipper buys a new car, he pays lifetime
>> >savings because of those high wages and benefits.
>> >When an unionized auto worker goes to a restaurant, he pays low
>> >price because workers are paid low wages - compaired to his wages.
>
>> And this is his fault?
>
>If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to
>the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
Why?
>But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
How is that...Sorry, I had to laugh at that one.
>Whose fault it is?
Who does the hiring?
>
>> >Why should autoworkers be allowed to suck money out of consumers?
>
>> Why should mutinational corporations suck capital away from the consumer
>> through tax subsidies,overinflated costs ( to provide for the CORPORATE
>> bottom line, not the workers), and pillage of recources?
>
>You are right about subsidies. I had great expectations about
>Republicans.
>They fucked up.
They didn't fuck up,they didn't listen to the 60% of the centrists that make
up the voting block in this country...OK they fucked up...
>
>> >> So it's ok for facist and nazi's to kill, but let the "commies" do the
>> >> same and you cry foul?
>
>> >Commies started it first, in Russia.
>
>> And I though Karl Marx was German....
>
>How many people Marx killed personally?
He's a commie?
> How many people Russian commies did?
There are " commie " peasants who do nothing but toil in the feilds allday.
Who have they killed? No one to my knowledge....
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
" Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"!
CeeJay
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
<3644f81f....@news.blarg.net>...
>Michael Vilkin wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>
>>> All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
>>> If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
>>> group?
>>
>>Fair share? What the heck is that?
>>That's your fair share.
>>
>>allowed to _extort_ higher pay from your employer.
>
>collective. The employer should be free to negotiate with available
>willing collectives, or with available willing individuals, or with
>some mixture thereof according to his own perception of his own best
>interests.
>
>In most of the US today, if the workers at a particular place of
>business vote - by majority vote - to negotiate collectively, the
>employer has a choice of negotiating with THAT collective, or closing
>the business. The employees who voted against the collective have a
>choice of paying tribute to the collective, or terminating their labor
>contract and finding another job elsewhere.
So following that logic....If the majority of the voters in my
local,county,state or nation) vote in a libertarian,or some other thing,
and I didn't, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes, or be held accountable for
any law that party passes,even if I break that "law"?
Ok, I'm all for it!
Gary Forbis
Well then, send the worker packing.
>So say he's paid an extra cent. But now the
>other workers want parity with him, so they have to be aid an extra cent
>too. Now there's $96.96 chasing 96 goods, the price per good has gone
>up to $1.01 and we have inflation.
Let's not do this. Why motivate an individual to stay by the illusion of
higher pay?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
I don't see the connection here. I don't see the similarity between a
change in behavior of an inherently coercive institution, and a
coercive disruption of a previously-existing voluntary contract.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Michael Vilkin wrote in message <3644B3...@hotmail.com>...
> >CeeJay wrote:
> >
> >> All labor want's is their fair share of the rewards of their labor.....
> >> If I can command, as an individual, a price for my labors, why can't the
> >> group?
> >
> >Fair share? What the heck is that?
>
> If you can't figure this out on your own,then nothing I,or anyone else say's
> will fit into your comprehension curve....I'm truly sorry for that.
You missed the point. His definition of fair isn't your definition of
fair isn't my definition of fair. So, what does 'fair' then mean?
> >Whatever a free market is willing to pay you.
> >That's your fair share.
>
> And the free market is willing to pay UNION WAGES!!!
Those factories relocating overseas are doing so because of high labor
costs here.
> >Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
> Union workers are paid 29% more on average than their non union
> counterparts.They are 26% more productive on average,however....
> Your begrudging someone 3%?
Why should they be paid more than what they are worth?
> According to DOL, the unionized workforce is 13.75%, down from
> 35% in the late 50's/early 60's. Why does corporate America fear us so?
>
That isn't the question. The question is why do so few Americans want
to unionize?
Steven
Michael Vilkin <mikev...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3643D9...@hotmail.com...
>Steven wrote:
> (...)
>> Labor Unions arose for exactly the reason that competition in labor
markets
>> in some instances is imperfect. In these instances the firm can pay
labor
>> less than its marginal product. Without collective bargaining there is
no
>> incentive for the firm to negotiate in good faith.
>
>The result is that unionized workers are paid twice more for equal work.
cites please
>A burger flipper works as hard as an unionized worker, but is paid
>twice - three times? - less. Is it fair for a burger flipper?
Working hard has nothing to do with wages it is worker productivity, skill
set, education, experience, etc. that determine differentials in wages. The
differential in wages paid in most jobs in the US can be explained by these
criteria. But other jobs or professions have huge individual wage or salary
differentials, e.g., lawyers or CEOs.
>
>I'd increase minimum wages twice - if union wages stay the same.
If the minimum wage rises above the minimum market wage, btw the current
minimum wage is below minimum market wages, then unemployment will result.
The national minimum wage places, on behalf of the less skilled or non-union
workers, wage pressures on employers who would otherwise relocate a plant to
another area of the country to take advantage of lower labor costs in the
absence of such minimum wage. This is less true today than it once was
since the minimum wage has become almost an anachronism with the decline of
union power. But it is important to point out that unions in the north once
pushed mightily for the national minimum wage and subsequent increases to
make it more painful for employers to relocate to the south.
>But greedy bloodsucker democRats will certainly tell unions to strike.
The conditions that lead to strikes or labor disputes are not governed by
such a simplistic process.
But the fact that minimum wage laws have been largely supported by Democrats
and not by Republicans seems to run counter to your theory that the
Democratic Party is somehow perversely against the common man/woman. And
that those minimum wage laws were in turn strongly supported by unions as a
weapon against employers searching for lower cost labor seems to run counter
to your distrust and distaste for unions.
>Maybe, one day we will teach you a lesson.
What might that be?
CeeJay
>>>business vote - by majority vote - to negotiate collectively, the
>>>employer has a choice of negotiating with THAT collective, or closing
>>>the business. The employees who voted against the collective have a
>>>choice of paying tribute to the collective, or terminating their labor
>>>contract and finding another job elsewhere.
>>
>>So following that logic....If the majority of the voters in my
>> local,county,state or nation) vote in a libertarian,or some other thing,
>>and I didn't, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes, or be held accountable
for
>>any law that party passes,even if I break that "law"?
>
>I don't see the connection here.
I know,you hate democracy....
I don't see the similarity between a
>change in behavior of an inherently coercive institution,
Coercive???? You mean like the IRS?
and a
>coercive disruption of a previously-existing voluntary contract.
And praytell what contract might that be?
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > My point - once again.
> > Full employment will increase GDP. We will consume more.
> > Paper wages - higher or lower - are not as important.
> > Can we agree on this?
> Yes.
I'm glad you agreed. Now let's make another step.
Long time ago I was studying this problem. I'll write
as I remember, and you check for mistakes.
Prices are determined by amount of goods, on one side,
and amount of money chasing those goods, on the other side.
More money chasing the same amount of goods will increase prices.
Less amount of goods chased by the same amount of money
will increase the price of the goods.
We can say that prices are directly proportional to the amount
of money chasing the goods, and adversely proportional to the
amount of goods, available for sale.
This relationship may be expressed by a simple equation
Prices = Amount of money : Amount of goods
Money
Prices = ---------
Goods
Prices equal Amount of money divided by Amount of goods.
This is a general idea, which does not take to the account
everything, which may affect the prices.
Basically, it's the same old idea.
Money here is Demand. Goods is Supply.
Let's name increase in prices Inflation, and
decrease in prices Deflation.
Now, let's find out what are the _major_ causes of increase
of amount of money, and what are causes of increase of the
amount of goods.
Increase of money:
1. Higher wages.
2. Loose credit.
Increase of goods.
1. Production of goods.
There are one hundred and one other causes of increase of demand,
like the Christmas time, but we are not discussing all of them.
Let's stop here for a while to see if we agree.
Check it out, Shawn.
-- Michael Vilkin.
C Post
>
> C Post wrote in message <36434B...@istar.ca>...
> >Dan Clore wrote:
> >>
> >> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
> >> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
> >> get it yet?
> >
> >Not if government _forces_ employers to bargain with workers'
> >collectives when the employer would rather bargain with willing
> >individual workers. A free market for labor would include unions that
> >have no more _legal_ power than any other cooperative special interest
> >group, like a garden club.
>
> Which obviates the obvious need for labor unions in the first place.
What "obvious need"? There is an obvious _place_ for labor unions, as
there is for any other voluntary special interest group. What there is
_no_ obvious need for is government prohibition of individual
bargaining.
> If you
> eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of labor
> unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
Wrong. Funny how you _automatically_assume_ that unless government
_forces_ employers to bargain only with unions, collective bargaining
will somehow be "eliminated." What would stop employers who wanted to
bargain collectively from doing so?
And why wouldn't labor unions be able to advance the interests of
workers _without_ compulsory collective bargaining? Surely they could
help workers stay informed about different employers, organize boycotts
of abusive employers, etc. Labor unions without special legal powers
could be just as effective as any other special interest group.
> Certainly a regulatory environment where
> >unions are legally empowered to forbid voluntary transactions between
> >employers and non-union workers is in no sense a free market for labor.
>
> You are not talking about a free market per se but a market where perfect
> competition exists which presupposes perfect information.
Wrong. A free market does not require perfect competition. Period.
> Such a market
> would presuppose that firms were wage takers. It also assumes that no one
> firm and no one worker could influence the average wage.
On the contrary. I would asume that all firms and all workers would
influence the average wage. That's how an average wage _happens_.
> Since we know this
> is not the case in most labor markets your definition of a free market for
> labor only exists in theoretical constructs of labor markets.
You're doing a fine job on your strawman. Keep it up. You'll feel
better afterwards, no doubt of it.
> Labor Unions arose for exactly the reason that competition in labor markets
> in some instances is imperfect.
Wrong. They arose because workers saw a way to advance their own
interests through collective action. If anything, the thrust of union
efforts has been to reduce the level of labor market competition.
> In these instances the firm can pay labor
> less than its marginal product.
Why would a firm be interested in employing anyone if they _couldn't_
pay them less than their margginal product?
> Without collective bargaining there is no
> incentive for the firm to negotiate in good faith.
Except the desire to stay in business and make a profit...
Steven
C Post <ro...@istar.ca> wrote in message news:364663...@istar.ca...
>Steven wrote:
>>
>> C Post wrote in message <36434B...@istar.ca>...
>> >Dan Clore wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc
etc,
>> >> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for
labor" --
>> >> get it yet?
>> >
>> >Not if government _forces_ employers to bargain with workers'
>> >collectives when the employer would rather bargain with willing
>> >individual workers. A free market for labor would include unions that
>> >have no more _legal_ power than any other cooperative special interest
>> >group, like a garden club.
>>
>> Which obviates the obvious need for labor unions in the first place.
>
>What "obvious need"? There is an obvious _place_ for labor unions, as
>there is for any other voluntary special interest group. What there is
>_no_ obvious need for is government prohibition of individual
>bargaining.
Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US. If
employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>
>> If you
>> eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of labor
>> unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
>
>Wrong. Funny how you _automatically_assume_ that unless government
>_forces_ employers to bargain only with unions, collective bargaining
>will somehow be "eliminated." What would stop employers who wanted to
>bargain collectively from doing so?
There is no incentive to do so. The firm can hire replacement workers and
ignore the union entirely and refuse to re-hire any union workers.
>And why wouldn't labor unions be able to advance the interests of
>workers _without_ compulsory collective bargaining? Surely they could
>help workers stay informed about different employers, organize boycotts
>of abusive employers, etc. Labor unions without special legal powers
>could be just as effective as any other special interest group.
Because without legal standing and employer coercion no labor union would
have a chance. If a worker is not working then they are not earning income.
The employer has more power to wait the union out than the workers have to
wait the employer out. Hence mandatory collective bargaining.
>
>> Certainly a regulatory environment where
>> >unions are legally empowered to forbid voluntary transactions between
>> >employers and non-union workers is in no sense a free market for labor.
>>
>> You are not talking about a free market per se but a market where perfect
>> competition exists which presupposes perfect information.
>
>Wrong. A free market does not require perfect competition. Period.
A free labor market does not prevent firms who have a ready labor supply in
the form of the unemployed or underemployed from replacing workers who try
to organize a labor union. Hence, the necessity for the NLRB procedures to
ensure fair treatment for the union vote.
>
>> Such a market
>> would presuppose that firms were wage takers. It also assumes that no
one
>> firm and no one worker could influence the average wage.
>
>On the contrary. I would asume that all firms and all workers would
>influence the average wage. That's how an average wage _happens_.
We were talking about perfectly competitive labor markets where all firms
were price takers and all workers were subject to the market wage. In such
a world there would be no need for labor unions.
>
>> Since we know this
>> is not the case in most labor markets your definition of a free market
for
>> labor only exists in theoretical constructs of labor markets.
>
>You're doing a fine job on your strawman. Keep it up. You'll feel
>better afterwards, no doubt of it.
What strawman? You mentioned free labor markets when you really meant labor
markets under perfect competition. I only pointed out your error.
>
>> Labor Unions arose for exactly the reason that competition in labor
markets
>> in some instances is imperfect.
>
>Wrong. They arose because workers saw a way to advance their own
>interests through collective action. If anything, the thrust of union
>efforts has been to reduce the level of labor market competition.
An imperfect market means that an employer was able to set wages below the
marginal product of labor but above subsistence.
>
>> In these instances the firm can pay labor
>> less than its marginal product.
>
>Why would a firm be interested in employing anyone if they _couldn't_
>pay them less than their margginal product?
You forget the other factors of production other than labor. If
distribution to labor is less than its marginal product (marginal product of
the last worker hired) then the employer is in a monopsony position with
respect to labor and can set the wage below the marginal product of labor.
>> Without collective bargaining there is no
>> incentive for the firm to negotiate in good faith.
>
>Except the desire to stay in business and make a profit...
The above statement does not address the previous statement of incentives to
negotiate. Your statement answers an unasked question about collective
bargaining not germane to incentives to negotiate. In negotiation it is
assumed that there is room for the firm to compromise with the union and
remain profitable.
Misdirection may do well to fool the fools but you must try harder with me,
dear sir.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore wrote:
> > Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > > Dan Clore wrote:
> > > > Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > > > > We need fair labor laws.
> > > > > Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
> > > > > explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
> > >
> > > > In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
> > > > intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint. How
> > > > far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who had
> > > > people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
> > >
> > > Against laborers? No. Against _unionized_ laborers.
> > > See the difference?
> > > Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
> > > They are paid a free market price for labor.
> > > A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
> >
> > If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
> > then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
> > get it yet? I doubt it, so see if you can figure this out: you don't
> > have a free market when the government intervenes in the market. You are
> > quite literally calling for government intervention in the market, and
> > then claiming the result is a "free market". I mean, how fucking stupid
> > can you get? Here it is again, schematically:
> >
> > Government intervention = unfree market
> > No government intervention = free market
>
> Fine. Then why does the government interfere on behalf of unions and other
> special interest groups.
As a small counterbalance to the much greater interference on against
the workers and on behalf of the capitalists, I would suspect.
> To wit:
>
> 1) Government laws mandate rehiring striking workers. In a free market,
> striking workers could be replaced at will. They went on strike; if someone
> else will do the job, so be it.
>
> 2) Closed shop laws. Granted, many of these are going, but I consider it
> government interference to tell me whom I can hire.
>
> 3) Affirmative action. Ditto. If I want to be a racist fuck and not hire a
> superior person because of some aesthetic reason, so be it. In the long run, my
> costs will be hire, and I'll probably go out of business.
>
> > See how it works? In case you're wondering, you like the first best.
>
> So, it appears, do you.
And you derive this judgment from what precisely?
> The government intervenes heavily in the private
> sector. I, for one, want it out. Some agencies, like OSHA, have a legitimate
> purpose. Others, however, are nothing more than social engineering.
>
> > > Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
> > > If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
> > > Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
> >
> > So you think it's okay to murder people for crimes they *might* commit
> > sometime in the future, when there isn't even any evidence that the
> > might commit those crimes? And BTW, why aren't all the rich folks who
> > got massive corporate welfare from the Pinochet regime "banditos"?
>
> Not to defend Pinochet here, but when I was in Chile, people were pretty open
> about how bad the situation was before him. Sometimes the lesser of two evils
> is still evil. However, this is not the proper place to discuss this.
I'm quite certain that "people were pretty open about how bad the
situation was before him", given that they might be tortured and killed
for disagreeing with that sentiment.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Dan Clore
> > > We need fair labor laws.
> > > Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
> > > explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
>
> > In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
> > intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint. How
> > far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who had
> > people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
>
> You must have missed him saying "[t]hen we need labor camps for labor
> unions".
>
> He's a real piece of work, isn't he ?
Yes, he is. I was going to respond to some other posts of his, but I
might as well try to argue with a Stalinist. Waste of time.
Shawn A. Wilson
> Prices are determined by amount of goods, on one side,
> and amount of money chasing those goods, on the other side.
> More money chasing the same amount of goods will increase prices.
> Less amount of goods chased by the same amount of money
> will increase the price of the goods.
So far, so good.
> Prices equal Amount of money divided by Amount of goods.
> This is a general idea, which does not take to the account
> everything, which may affect the prices.
> Basically, it's the same old idea.
> Money here is Demand. Goods is Supply.
Sounds OK.
>
> Let's name increase in prices Inflation, and
> decrease in prices Deflation.
Not quite correct. Continually increasing (or decreasing) prices are
inflation (or deflation). One time price changes don't count.
>
> Now, let's find out what are the _major_ causes of increase
> of amount of money, and what are causes of increase of the
> amount of goods.
>
> Increase of money:
> 1. Higher wages.
OK
> 2. Loose credit.
No. It's not the credit that matters, it's SPENDING. The money supply
is loosely the amount of currency times the rate at which the currency
flows through the economy. If money is spent faster, the money supply
has increased. Credit isn't actually money.
Shawn A. Wilson
> >But for
> >there to be an extra worker, one of the workers who would have quit has
> >to be motivated to stay.
>
> Well then, send the worker packing.
Why? If there's enough demand to justify the expense of the extra
worker, that worker should be hired.
>
> >So say he's paid an extra cent. But now the
> >other workers want parity with him, so they have to be aid an extra cent
> >too. Now there's $96.96 chasing 96 goods, the price per good has gone
> >up to $1.01 and we have inflation.
>
> Let's not do this. Why motivate an individual to stay by the illusion of
> higher pay?
'Cause it works. 'Cause price levels are hard for individuals to
discover in the real world (there are a LOT of goods out there). Price
levels are easy for firms though, they don't need to know all of them,
just their input and output prices.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US. If
>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of
government ENFORCING that power.
Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor
unions over both employers and employees.
It is true that at one time, the force of government was used to
ENFORCE the power of employers over labor unions. (But not, at that
time, over employees who chose not to act as part of labor unions.)
The government using force to dictate the existence, nonexistence, or
terms of a contract, or to improve the bargaining position of one
party against others, was wrong then, and it's wrong today.
>>> If you
>>> eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of labor
>>> unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
>>
>>Wrong. Funny how you _automatically_assume_ that unless government
>>_forces_ employers to bargain only with unions, collective bargaining
>>will somehow be "eliminated." What would stop employers who wanted to
>>bargain collectively from doing so?
>
>There is no incentive to do so. The firm can hire replacement workers and
>ignore the union entirely and refuse to re-hire any union workers.
Really. Let's see how fast any company recovers when a big chunk of
its skilled workforce prefers to stand outside the doors with picket
signs, rather than working.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> >poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
> This only shows that they should Unionize,so they can afford the "Fucking"
> car....The UAW doesn't extort unreasonable wages from the Big 3....If they
> did, why are the "big 3" making record breaking priffits every year? Why
> haven't they priced themselves out of existance?
Many unionized industries already priced themselves out of
existence. Dead American industries... they all were unionized.
Now tell me, if all low wage workers unionize, and their wages
will increase from $6/hr to $15/hr - will older unions demand higher
wages for themselves or they will work for the same wages?
> >Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
> Union workers are paid 29% more on average than their non union
> counterparts.They are 26% more productive on average,however....
> Your begrudging someone 3%?
Very stupid statement.
There is a nonunionized night-time doorman, working from temp-agency,
making $6/hr. And there is unionized day time doorman, making
twice more. Can you, son of a unionized bitch, demonstrate that
productivity of unionized doorman is twice higher than that
of nonunionised doorman? I'll wait for more of your bitchy
explanations.
> According to DOL, the unionized workforce is 13.75%, down from
> 35% in the late 50's/early 60's. Why does corporate America fear us so?
Because we want you dead.
> >If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to
> >the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
> Why?
To make twice more money than flipping burgers.
> >But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
> How is that...Sorry, I had to laugh at that one.
> Who does the hiring?
If I go to any unionized auto plant and say: "Fire all these sons
of the bitches, I'll bring nonunion workforce", can the CEO fire
you and hire nonunion workers? Can he? If not, why not?
Who does the hiring?
Why should CEO not be allowed to fire those mother fuckers?
One day we, people, will line you against the wall.
We will teach you both wages and productivity, bloodsuckers.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> You forget the other factors of production other than labor. If
> distribution to labor is less than its marginal product (marginal product of
> the last worker hired) then the employer is in a monopsony position with
> respect to labor and can set the wage below the marginal product of labor.
Let me ask a couple of questions.
Suppose, I started a small business. A bakery.
I hired a worker to bake bread.
Every day I buy a bag of flour for $100.
I sell bread for $300.
What is marginal product of the worker?
How much should I pay him?
What is a fair price of his labor, both from
economic and moral points of view?
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(..)
> > Let's name increase in prices Inflation, and
> > decrease in prices Deflation.
> Not quite correct. Continually increasing (or decreasing) prices are
> inflation (or deflation). One time price changes don't count.
I agree.
> > 2. Loose credit.
> No. It's not the credit that matters, it's SPENDING. The money supply
> is loosely the amount of currency times the rate at which the currency
> flows through the economy. If money is spent faster, the money supply
> has increased. Credit isn't actually money.
I agree. Increased spending caused by increased credit by the banking
system. So, we have
Money M
Prices = ---------- or P = ---
Goods G
M is being increased by higher wages ( W ) and spending ( S ).
Again, directly proportional relationship.
M = W * S
This equation shows only relationship between variables.
The higher Wages and higher Spending, the higher amount of Money,
chasing those goods.
Amount of goods is increased by production.
Production of G is determined by number of workers ( N ) and
productivity ( P ) of each worker.
Again, directly proportional relationship.
G = N * P
M M = W * S
Now replace Money and Goods in P = --- where
G G = N * P
We have W * S
P = ---------
N * P
What this equation says? The same old S:
Want low prices? Have low wages and high GDP, because
N * P = GDP.
GDP reaches maximum when both N and P reach maximum.
The higher N and P the higher GDP.
GDP is adversely proportional to Prices.
This equation says, like: it's better to be rich and healthy
than to be poor and sick. It does not really say how to
get rich, except to increase GDP.
Shawn, check what you don't like here, and after that
we may discuss how much unemployment is optimal.
I understand that there will always be people in
transition from one job to another.
But there are other problems also.
-- Michael Vilkin.
David Cross
>One day we, people, will line you against the wall.
>We will teach you both wages and productivity, bloodsuckers.
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
Why don't you knock it off for once?
CeeJay
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <3647BB...@hotmail.com>...
>CeeJay wrote:
> (...)
>> >When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that
>> >poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
>
>> This only shows that they should Unionize,so they can afford the
"Fucking"
>> car....The UAW doesn't extort unreasonable wages from the Big 3....If
they
>> did, why are the "big 3" making record breaking priffits every year? Why
>> haven't they priced themselves out of existance?
>
>existence. Dead American industries... they all were unionized.
That doesn''t explain why those Unionized companies are making
record breaking proffits year after year...
>
>Now tell me, if all low wage workers unionize, and their wages
>will increase from $6/hr to $15/hr - will older unions demand higher
>wages for themselves or they will work for the same wages?
Not for me to speculate....
>
>> >Our standard of living depends on how much we produce.
>> Union workers are paid 29% more on average than their non union
>> counterparts.They are 26% more productive on average,however....
>> Your begrudging someone 3%?
>
>Very stupid statement.
>There is a nonunionized night-time doorman, working from temp-agency,
>making $6/hr. And there is unionized day time doorman, making
>twice more. Can you, son of a unionized bitch,
Despite your statement,my mother wasn't Unionized for 35 years.
But your growing frustration at the inabillity to reply in an honest,
logical manner is noted....
demonstrate that
>productivity of unionized doorman is twice higher than that
>of nonunionised doorman? I'll wait for more of your bitchy
>explanations.
If your public school had taken you past big birds big book
of big words, and taught you reading comprehension, you'd
notice the word "average" in the sentence " they are 26%
more poductive on AVERAGE......
This would lead the rational among us to imply that this is
not representative of all the workforce, a piece of logic that
seems to slip from your feeble grasp.
>
>> According to DOL, the unionized workforce is 13.75%, down from
>> 35% in the late 50's/early 60's. Why does corporate America fear us so?
>
>Because we want you dead.
Ahhhh! the frustration with the inabillity to reply logically builds yet
further!
>
>> >If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to
>> >the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
>
>> Why?
>
>To make twice more money than flipping burgers.
If they went to work at a plant for less than Union wages,
whats to say they wouldn't be paid the same as flipping burgers?
>
>> >But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
>
>> How is that...Sorry, I had to laugh at that one.
>> Who does the hiring?
>
>If I go to any unionized auto plant and say: "Fire all these sons
>of the bitches, I'll bring nonunion workforce", can the CEO fire
>you and hire nonunion workers?
He could.but wouldn't,You have nothing to offer, and The CEO
has a trained and skilled workforce to lose.
Can he? If not, why not?
>Who does the hiring?
The company,not the "CEO". The comany, for those too stupid to
figure out, consists of the Board of directors,and stockholders.
In a Union company they abide by the contract they agreed to and
signed. in a non union company they make up hiring practices based
on their needs and the applicable labor laws of that state and country.
>Why should CEO not be allowed to fire those mother fuckers?
Corporations hold the power to terminat the employment of any
employee "at will".This usually implies a layoff rather than "firing"
as you'd have.But this is not the sole property of the CEO as
stated previously.
>
>One day we, people, will line you against the wall.
>We will teach you both wages and productivity, bloodsuckers.
I think Labor should teach you productivity and common sense...
Nah! We do the difficult, not the impossible.I'll leave the impossible
to the SEABEES!
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
CeeJay
David Cross wrote in message ...
>>We will teach you both wages and productivity, bloodsuckers.
>>
>
>Why don't you knock it off for once?
>
You can't get a tiger to chages his stripes....Why ask a moron to get a
clue?
CeeJay
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
>Steven wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US.
If
>>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>
>
>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of
>government ENFORCING that power.
>
>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor
>unions over both employers and employees.
How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
>
>It is true that at one time, the force of government was used to
>ENFORCE the power of employers over labor unions. (But not, at that
>time, over employees who chose not to act as part of labor unions.)
Again, we come to the old " if I didn't vote for "bozo the clown" why should
I abide by the rules of the government he was voted to, to include paying
taxes..." I should have the same right to refuse the democratically elected
representation of the government of my country as the "objectionists" have
to refuse the democratically elected representation of the workforce,
shouldn't I?
>
>The government using force to dictate the existence, nonexistence, or
>terms of a contract, or to improve the bargaining position of one
>party against others, was wrong then, and it's wrong today.
But you support it?
>
>>>> If you
>>>> eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of
labor
>>>> unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Funny how you _automatically_assume_ that unless government
>>>_forces_ employers to bargain only with unions, collective bargaining
>>>will somehow be "eliminated." What would stop employers who wanted to
>>>bargain collectively from doing so?
What employer ( or how many) voluntarily want to bargain collectively?
>>
>>There is no incentive to do so. The firm can hire replacement workers and
>>ignore the union entirely and refuse to re-hire any union workers.
>
>Really. Let's see how fast any company recovers when a big chunk of
>its skilled workforce prefers to stand outside the doors with picket
>signs, rather than working.
Precisely why we have Unions,and regulations regarding this....
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
><3647433a...@news.blarg.net>...
>>Steven wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>
>>>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US.
>If
>>>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>>
>>It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
>>
>>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of
>>government ENFORCING that power.
>>
>>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor
>>unions over both employers and employees.
>
>How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
By dictating that, if the workers choose to negotiate jointly in a
union, the company is not permitted to simply discontinue negotations
with those workers and take up negotations with another group of
workers instead.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread by myself and
others.
Steven
>Steven wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> You forget the other factors of production other than labor. If
>> distribution to labor is less than its marginal product (marginal product
of
>> the last worker hired) then the employer is in a monopsony position with
>> respect to labor and can set the wage below the marginal product of
labor.
>
>
>Suppose, I started a small business. A bakery.
>I hired a worker to bake bread.
>Every day I buy a bag of flour for $100.
>I sell bread for $300.
>
>What is marginal product of the worker?
Unclear. You have a fixed cost of $100 p/day for flour leaving $200 of
revenue to pay the factors of production. When you purchased the capital
equipment for the bakery you made an investment and expected a certain
return over time from that investment. Capital's share of income will be
based upon this expected return which is not arbitrary but is a function of
what your alternative investment opportunities were at the time you made
your investment in the bakery. Labor's share is the remaining income. If
labor's share is less than the market wage for bakers then capital will earn
less of a return than forecast. If the market wage is lower than labor's
share capital will earn a higher return than expected. This scenario is
based upon the assumption that your bakery is not a wage setter.
>How much should I pay him?
If you own the sole bakery the wage paid will be what the baker is willing
to accept based on his next best employment opportunity. If your bakery is
one of many then your firm will be subject to the market wage for bakers.
>What is a fair price of his labor, both from
>economic and moral points of view?
There is no "fair" price only market prices.
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
Shawn A. Wilson
> > > 2. Loose credit.
>
> > No. It's not the credit that matters, it's SPENDING. The money supply
> > is loosely the amount of currency times the rate at which the currency
> > flows through the economy. If money is spent faster, the money supply
> > has increased. Credit isn't actually money.
>
> I agree. Increased spending caused by increased credit by the banking
> system.
No, NO, NO!!!! Credit isn't money, credit is just a way of moving money
through time. Having a greater ability to move money through time
doesn't increase the amount of money you have.
CeeJay
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
>CeeJay wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
>><3647433a...@news.blarg.net>...
>>>Steven wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>>
>>If
>>>>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>>>
>>>
>>>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of
>>>government ENFORCING that power.
>>>
>>>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor
>>>unions over both employers and employees.
>>
>>How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
>
>By dictating that, if the workers choose to negotiate jointly in a
>union, the company is not permitted to simply discontinue negotations
>with those workers and take up negotations with another group of
>workers instead.
Ok since you like sniping....
If Some libertarian scumbag gets elected and I didn't vote for him,
I guess that means I can have the republicans come in his place
and make laws for me only,not to mention I'd pay taxes to them only....
I love libertarian circular logic!
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> > ... demonstrate that
> >productivity of unionized doorman is twice higher than that
> >of nonunionised doorman? I'll wait for more of your bitchy
> >explanations.
> If your public school had taken you past big birds big book
> of big words, and taught you reading comprehension, you'd
> notice the word "average" in the sentence " they are 26%
> more poductive on AVERAGE......
> This would lead the rational among us to imply that this is
> not representative of all the workforce, a piece of logic that
> seems to slip from your feeble grasp.
Now I see. If some unionized workers somewhere are on average
26% more productive, it means that an unionized day-time
doorman, whose union contract prohibits night-time work,
is intitled to twice higher wages than night-time nonunionized
doorman. Plus benefits. And we all are supposed to pay for it.
You are nothing but bloodsucker bugs.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from
> > economic and moral points of view?
> There is no "fair" price only market prices.
Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit?
Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get
market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
I still believe Marx was right on a few points.
Theory of class struggle is correct.
We have two classes of workers in the U.S.
There is the unionized aristocracy of the working
class, and there is nonunionized plebs.
In Germany labor elite was suddenly displaced
from it's elitist position.
Lowly workers, unite!
It's time to displace elite!
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> The point (since you refuse you use your brain to look
> at anything and actually think about it) is that
> experts are NOT in policy-making positions. Those who
> make policy are for the most part those who were born
> in the right bed, and have inherited tons of money,
> through no merit of their own. Their ancestors, who
> left them the money, were the same type of rabber baron
> as exemplified by Bill Gates today. They were experts
> in nothing other than manipulating money and people to
> get what they want: in other words, con men.
> Would you say that the policies on crime should be set
> by criminals? That is the same thing as saying that the
> policies on money should be set by the rich.
OK, capitalism is bad. Is socialism better?
What would you do if allowed unlimited power
of a dictator of a socialist country?
Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
You are now the head of Politburo.
Tell us how you would create a worker's
paradize.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Steven
>Steven wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from
>> > economic and moral points of view?
>
>> There is no "fair" price only market prices.
>
>Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit?
>Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get
>market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
The point is that the market wage in a perfectly competitive market is equal
to the marginal product of labor. However, this is just too good to be true
in the real world for most labor is subject to monopsony power or that
employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal product. Which
is the reason that unions exist in the first place.
[snip]
CeeJay
Steven wrote in message <72anf4$j6g$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>
>Michael Vilkin <mikev...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:364908...@hotmail.com...
>>Steven wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from
>>> > economic and moral points of view?
>>
>>> There is no "fair" price only market prices.
>>
>>Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit?
>>Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get
>>market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
>
>The point is that the market wage in a perfectly competitive market is
equal
>to the marginal product of labor. However, this is just too good to be
true
>in the real world for most labor is subject to monopsony power or that
Which
>is the reason that unions exist in the first place.
Your argument with "mikey" is similar to the old adage about' a silk purse
and a sows ear".....
I don't think he has the abillity to grasp the concepts you propose.He seems
to have been rejected for employment oce upon a time, and thinks the blame
should lie at the feet of the workers, rather than management.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
CeeJay
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <36490B...@hotmail.com>...
>kenfran wrote:
> (...)
>> The point (since you refuse you use your brain to look
>> at anything and actually think about it) is that
>> experts are NOT in policy-making positions. Those who
>> make policy are for the most part those who were born
>> in the right bed, and have inherited tons of money,
>> through no merit of their own. Their ancestors, who
>> left them the money, were the same type of rabber baron
>> as exemplified by Bill Gates today. They were experts
>> in nothing other than manipulating money and people to
>> get what they want: in other words, con men.
>> Would you say that the policies on crime should be set
>> by criminals? That is the same thing as saying that the
>> policies on money should be set by the rich.
>
>OK, capitalism is bad. Is socialism better?
I'm sorry to interject here, but where does the last poster imply a desire
for socialism?
>What would you do if allowed unlimited power
>of a dictator of a socialist country?
>Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
You think the regime of George III was socialist?
Guido Lawenstein
>I'm sorry to interject here, but where does the last poster imply a desire
>for socialism?
>
>>What would you do if allowed unlimited power
>>of a dictator of a socialist country?
>>Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
>
>You think the regime of George III was socialist?
>
>>You are now the head of Politburo.
>>Tell us how you would create a worker's
>>paradize.
>>
>>-- Michael Vilkin.
>
I think you don't know the difference between socialism and dictatorship but
don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary.
Moreover, capitalism defines the economic structure of a country not it's
political structure (although there are links between them). You should
realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries
(particularly in Europe) manage very well with a mixture of socialism and a
market economy.
CeeJay
Guido Lawenstein wrote in message
<72b001$7rp$1...@narses.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>...
For future refference,reply to the ORIGINAL author of the article. not to
those who reply.......
>
>
Gary Forbis
But it does let you focus it into a narrow time slot, giving the appearance
of more money.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary.
I've, probably, forgatten more about socialism than you will ever know.
I was born in USSR, studied economics and Marxism in USSR.
I don't need no dictionary, you silly...
> Moreover, capitalism defines the economic structure of a country not it's
> political structure (although there are links between them).
And what may be variations of political structures built
on capitalist economic basis?
Maybe, some kind of socialism?
> You should
> realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries
> (particularly in Europe) manage very well with a mixture of socialism and a
> market economy.
Very stupid statement. Socialism and market economy... get this.
Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production,
Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
Market economy is economy where prices and wages are determined
by supply and demand.
Centralized economy is economy where prices and wages
are controlled by government.
Market economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
Centralized economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
President Nixon implemented price and wage control.
Control did not convert capitalist economy into socialist.
Economy which was out of control because of labor unions,
was put back under control.
Europian countries have a mixture of socialism and capitalism.
They have also a mixture of market economy and centralized
economy.
The question stands: "What would you do to create worker's
paradize?"
Imagine, you have unlimited power.
Before or after the Revolution.
You, bloodsuckers, can not do anything good for workers.
High class of unionized labor aristocracy is sucking money
and blood out of lowly nonunionized workers?
Did you ever see a unionized worker to demand to increase
minimum wages, but leave union wages the same?
Do words "equality" and "solidarity" mean anything
to those bloodsuckers?
What happens when both minimum wages and union wages
go up in step? Nothing, really. Just more paper for
the same shit. A lowly worker has to pay his lifetime
savings to buy that fucken car.
And bloodsuckers bugs continue to suck.
Until you are popped between nails.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> >> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from
> >> > economic and moral points of view?
> >> There is no "fair" price only market prices.
> >Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit?
> >Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get
> >market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
> The point is that the market wage in a perfectly competitive market is equal
> to the marginal product of labor. However, this is just too good to be true
> in the real world for most labor is subject to monopsony power or that
> employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal product. Which
> is the reason that unions exist in the first place.
"... employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal
product. Which is the reason that unions exist in the first place."
OK. Tell me how workers may calculate that marginal product.
Do they?
Is the way to calculate marginal product the same for both classes
of workers - unionized elite and nonunionized plebs?
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
> >No, NO, NO!!!! Credit isn't money, credit is just a way of moving money
> >through time. Having a greater ability to move money through time
> >doesn't increase the amount of money you have.
> But it does let you focus it into a narrow time slot, giving the appearance
> of more money.
Hell, my newsreader missed Shawn's post.
Shawn, post once again, please, in alt.politics.economics.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Gary Forbis
...
>I've, probably, forgatten more about socialism than you will ever know.
>I was born in USSR, studied economics and Marxism in USSR.
>I don't need no dictionary, you silly...
>Very stupid statement. Socialism and market economy... get this.
> Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production,
>Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong when you
say "Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production."
Government ownership is but one form of socialism.
Some forms of socialism allow private ownership of the means of
production. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production
by investors who command a portion of the production by virtue of
their ownership. There can be capitalism without free markets just
as there can be socialism with free markets.
CeeJay
>
>Very stupid statement.
Followed by one of even greater " intelectual ineptitude".
Socialism and market economy... get this.
> Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production,
Wrong. Communism = state ownership of all production.
Socialism = state ownership or controll of major industries.
(ie: utillities,shipbuilding,steel...etc.....)
(ECON 101)
>Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
>
>Market economy is economy where prices and wages are determined
>by supply and demand.
> Centralized economy is economy where prices and wages
>are controlled by government.
>
>Market economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
>Centralized economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
>
>President Nixon implemented price and wage control.
>Control did not convert capitalist economy into socialist.
>Economy which was out of control because of labor unions,
>was put back under control.
Out of controll because corporate America refused to compromise it's
stranglehold on the economy and let the working stiff earn a decent living,
instead of the ever increasing bottom line....
>
>Europian countries have a mixture of socialism and capitalism.
>They have also a mixture of market economy and centralized
>economy.
>
>The question stands: "What would you do to create worker's
>paradize?"
>Imagine, you have unlimited power.
>Before or after the Revolution.
>
>You, bloodsuckers, can not do anything good for workers.
>High class of unionized labor aristocracy is sucking money
>and blood out of lowly nonunionized workers?
You keep confusing Corparate America with the labor movement....
Just goes to show the inferior Sov. education you've recieved.
That is, if we can believe what you say.
Yob tvoyu mat! Tovarish!
>
>Did you ever see a unionized worker to demand to increase
>minimum wages, but leave union wages the same?
>Do words "equality" and "solidarity" mean anything
>to those bloodsuckers?
Do blatant ignorance and stupidity mean anything to you?
Your ignorance demonstrated by your considerable lack of knolege of the
American and Global Labor movement, coupled with your frustration over your
inabillity to comprehend these simple subjects would lead to stupidity....
>
>What happens when both minimum wages and union wages
>go up in step? Nothing, really. Just more paper for
>the same shit. A lowly worker has to pay his lifetime
>savings to buy that fucken car.
> And bloodsuckers bugs continue to suck.
>Until you are popped between nails.
Case in point!
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
Shawn A. Wilson
Uh, that was it for my part of that post.
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote in message <364A51...@hotmail.com>...
> >Very stupid statement. Socialism and market economy... get this.
> > Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production,
> >Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
> No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong when you
> say "Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production."
> Government ownership is but one form of socialism.
> Some forms of socialism allow private ownership of the means of
> production. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production
> by investors who command a portion of the production by virtue of
> their ownership. There can be capitalism without free markets just
> as there can be socialism with free markets.
OK, I admit I said herecy. Let me come clean.
I'm for socialism and against capitalism.
I mean those forms, where socialism is based on private
ownership, and capitalism is based on government ownership.
Gary, is it politically correct?
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
> Wrong. Communism = state ownership of all production.
Ownership of _means of production_, stupid, not "production".
And that's socialism.
Communism, by Marx' definition, is an economic system, where
government died off, and distribution of goods and services
is done without money.
> Socialism = state ownership or controll of major industries.
> (ie: utillities,shipbuilding,steel...etc.....)
> (ECON 101)
Once again for idiots.
Socialism is government ownership of means of production
> >President Nixon implemented price and wage control.
> >Control did not convert capitalist economy into socialist.
> >Economy which was out of control because of labor unions,
> >was put back under control.
> Out of controll because corporate America refused to compromise it's
> stranglehold on the economy and let the working stiff earn a decent living,
> instead of the ever increasing bottom line....
Tell me how workers can "earn a decent living".
-- Michael Vilkin.
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > Hell, my newsreader missed Shawn's post.
> > Shawn, post once again, please, in alt.politics.economics.
> Uh, that was it for my part of that post.
Shawn, does it mean that increased credit by the banking system
does not cause higher prices?
Let's put it this way.
W + C W = Wages
P = -------- where C = Credit
GDP
If C has zero effect on prices, then we have W
P = -----
GDP
Which equation is correct?
Yes, GNP would be better, but for the sake of simplicity,
to avoid calculations of productivity of forein workers in American
corporations, which should be included in GNP, I hope you will agree
that GDP is acceptable.
The question we started to debate was about unemployment rate.
There are people in transition from one job to another.
There are people who would accept only high-paid union job.
Both these groups should not be counted as unemployed.
If we count only those who really, truly can not find _any_ job,
I believe, unemployment rate should be close to zero.
Now suppose that we have 5% unemployment, and all those workers
are either in transition or don't want to work.
Then we have full employment.
Suppose now, we fired a couple of million workers to increase
unemployment to 10%, and they really, truly can not find
any job, unionized or otherwise.
What direction will prices go?
On one hand, lower labor price should show up in lower prices.
On the other hand, fewer workers will produce smaller GDP.
I'd say that small GDP will drive consumer prices higher,
contrary to what textbooks say.
I respect your opinion, which is supposed to be based on
textbooks, but I'd suggest to investigate my argument also.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Gary Forbis
Even if only wages and credit were used for consumption savings
is sort of the opposite of credit. One could think of it as negative
credit I suppose.
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <364BAB...@hotmail.com>...
CeeJay
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <364B9E...@hotmail.com>...
>CeeJay wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Communism = state ownership of all production.
>
>Ownership of _means of production_, stupid, not "production".
>And that's socialism.
>
>Communism, by Marx' definition, is an economic system, where
>government died off, and distribution of goods and services
>is done without money.
>
>> Socialism = state ownership or controll of major industries.
>> (ie: utillities,shipbuilding,steel...etc.....)
>
>> (ECON 101)
>
>Once again for idiots.
>Socialism is government ownership of means of production
^^^^^^^^^
See above Tovarich..This is coming from the textbook
>
>> >President Nixon implemented price and wage control.
>> >Control did not convert capitalist economy into socialist.
>> >Economy which was out of control because of labor unions,
>> >was put back under control.
>
>> Out of controll because corporate America refused to compromise it's
>> stranglehold on the economy and let the working stiff earn a decent
living,
>> instead of the ever increasing bottom line....
>
>Tell me how workers can "earn a decent living".
I dunno, You seem to have all the answers that contradict textbooks, and
universities....You tell us?
>
>-- Michael Vilkin.
CeeJay
abcd...@my-dejanews.com
I think you should not recieve everything which you have learned from
dictionary! Try to make your own idea logically.
What is freedom?
Do we have really freedom?
Could you think logically?
Are you controlled or dominated by the legal or illegal
mafia-like organization?
Please, try to think once about these questions!
Do you know that value is the basis of economics?
Without value, there would be no economics at all.
Do you know that the "New Labour Theory of Value" tells you
what value is, how value is created and produced, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Economics?
Economics is not the study of commerce,
it is the study of Political Economy.
Value is the basis of economics.
Without value, there would be no economics at all.
Economics is a branch of social science. It is very important
for human society. Economics requires logical thought,
and if we study economics we must be able to think logically.
The content of economics should be:
1) Value, the basis of economics. Without value, there would
be no economics at all. Do you know 'What value is'? --
There are two kinds of value, the subjective value and
the objective value. Do you know the difference between them?
2) How would the objective value be created and produced?
3) How would the objective value be divided among the human
society?
4) How could the objective value be communicated or exchanged
in the human society?
5) How could human beings consume and enjoy the objective value?
6) What function has the subjective value in economics?
7) The relations between the subjective value and the
objective value.
8) Could anyone else produce your own subjective value?
Why would they? How could they?
9) Do you know the 'New Labour Theory of Value'? It tells you
what value is, how value is created and produced, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
Do we have real "Human rights"?
Do you like peace?
Do you like freedom?
Do you like justice?
Do you like honesty?
Would you be honest? or
Are you a honest human being?
Do you like the rich exploit the poor?
Do you like the stronger impose his will on the weaker?
Do you like the organized groups of people oppress the
unorganized people?
Have you the courage to know truth and to fight against the mafia?
Could you think logically and judiciously?.......If you......
Here I have much pleasure in recommending the
"New Labour Theory of value" to you, I think that the
"New labour Theory of Value" has really given the Economics
a real basis. There has no such value theory which can explain
the objective value of a thing as the "New labour Theory of
Value". It has also explain the way which the human beings
could live togather wihtout war.
Do you know any better one than this?
Could you recommend any better one than this to us openly?
If you don't know any better theory of value than
"New Labour Theory of Value", Please, tell the truth to the
People, and let it serves the human society now!
Do we have really freedom to write and to speak?
Do we have really "Human Rights"?
Please, try to think logically! Don't be deceived by anyone else!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation
Journal of Economic Literature:
The Publication of the American Economic Association, March 1992, P. 254-5.
Chao, Tzu-yuan. New Labour Theory of Value: The basic theory of economics
and guide to the development of human society. Second and expanded English
edition. Hamburg: Jensen.(1971....1985) 1991. Pp. xxiii. 251 Paper.
ISBN 3-926987-55-3. JEL,92-0065.
Translated from the German edition, which was translated from the original
Chinese version. The author contends that some basic faults exist in Marx's
theory of value and analyzes the origin of these faults, pointing out Marx's
incorrect grasp of the development of labor productivity and faulty
application of terminology. Presents a new labor theory of value and applies
it to the calculation of the value of goods. Discusses the historical
development of economics and humanity; the development tendency of the
capitalistic economic system; the principle of distribution in the ideal
socialist society; and the origins and development of socialism. The present
edition includes a new chapter on the principle of diminishing marginal
utility. Bibliography; index.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(If you need to know more, please, take a glance at the home page:
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/chaok) Thank you!
--------------------------------------------------------------
What is real Socialism?
"Definition of Socialism: The aim of socialism is to pursue political
democracy, individual freedom, especially the freedom from fear and all
forms of deficiency, economic equalitiy for individual lives, and to
develop techniques of production in order to guarantee the continuing
progress of human society.
The socialist society must be based on political democracy."
(From the "New Labour Theory of Value", Chapter XI, What is Socialism?)
--------------------
Do you like peace, freedom, equality,....? If you real like them, you
are an honest and brave human being and good for the real socialsm
society.
Please, be honest and try to think logically!
Have you still any new, better and reasonable ideas for the human society
than this? I mean your own ideas. If you have some good new ideas, please,
give it to the human society openly. All the people of this world will
thank you from the bottom of heart!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
( If you like to know more, Please, look at once the Home page:
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/chaok). Thank you!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
abcd...@my-dejanews.com
mikev...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Guido Lawenstein wrote:
> (...)
> > I think you don't know the difference between socialism and dictatorship but
> > don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary.
>
> I was born in USSR, studied economics and Marxism in USSR.
> I don't need no dictionary, you silly...
>
> > political structure (although there are links between them).
>
> And what may be variations of political structures built
> on capitalist economic basis?
> Maybe, some kind of socialism?
>
> > You should
> > realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries
> > market economy.
>
> Very stupid statement. Socialism and market economy... get this.
> Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production,
> Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
>
> by supply and demand.
> Centralized economy is economy where prices and wages
> are controlled by government.
>
> Market economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
> Centralized economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
>
> Control did not convert capitalist economy into socialist.
> Economy which was out of control because of labor unions,
> was put back under control.
>
> They have also a mixture of market economy and centralized
> economy.
>
> The question stands: "What would you do to create worker's
> paradize?"
> Imagine, you have unlimited power.
> Before or after the Revolution.
>
> You, bloodsuckers, can not do anything good for workers.
> High class of unionized labor aristocracy is sucking money
> and blood out of lowly nonunionized workers?
>
> minimum wages, but leave union wages the same?
> Do words "equality" and "solidarity" mean anything
> to those bloodsuckers?
>
> go up in step? Nothing, really. Just more paper for
> the same shit. A lowly worker has to pay his lifetime
> savings to buy that fucken car.
> And bloodsuckers bugs continue to suck.
> Until you are popped between nails.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
abcd...@my-dejanews.com
"Guido Lawenstein" <guido.la...@s1998.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
>
>
> >I'm sorry to interject here, but where does the last poster imply a desire
> >for socialism?
> >
> >>What would you do if allowed unlimited power
> >>of a dictator of a socialist country?
> >>Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
> >
> >You think the regime of George III was socialist?
> >
> >>You are now the head of Politburo.
> >>Tell us how you would create a worker's
> >>paradize.
> >>
> >>-- Michael Vilkin.
> >
> don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary.
> realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries
> (particularly in Europe) manage very well with a mixture of socialism and a
> market economy.
>
Craig
(A bunch of regurgitated drivel)
Listen U-Hamburg boy. Stop posting this nonsense. You've had your answers. You
make no points. Cut it out.
...Craig
---
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain - Schiller
abcd...@my-dejanews.com
"CeeJay" <oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
> <3647d0d6...@news.blarg.net>...
> >CeeJay wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >
> >>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
> >><3647433a...@news.blarg.net>...
> >>>Steven wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >>>
> >>>>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US.
> >>If
> >>>>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
> >>>
> >>>It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
> >>>
> >>>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of
> >>>government ENFORCING that power.
> >>>
> >>>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor
> >>>unions over both employers and employees.
> >>
> >>How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
> >
> >By dictating that, if the workers choose to negotiate jointly in a
> >union, the company is not permitted to simply discontinue negotations
> >with those workers and take up negotations with another group of
> >workers instead.
>
> Ok since you like sniping....
>
> If Some libertarian scumbag gets elected and I didn't vote for him,
> I guess that means I can have the republicans come in his place
> and make laws for me only,not to mention I'd pay taxes to them only....
>
> I love libertarian circular logic!
> >
> >As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread by myself and
> >others.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
> >any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
> >is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
> >US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>
> > Michael Vilkin wrote:
>
> > > Hell, my newsreader missed Shawn's post.
> > > Shawn, post once again, please, in alt.politics.economics.
>
> > Uh, that was it for my part of that post.
>
> Shawn, does it mean that increased credit by the banking system
> does not cause higher prices?
Correct. The velocity of money is determined only by how fast it's
spent. Since borrowed money will have to be repaid at some point, being
able to borrow more won't increase spending over the economy (repaying
the money you borrowed means your spending will then be reduced).
>
> Let's put it this way.
> W + C W = Wages
> P = -------- where C = Credit
> GDP
NO!!! Credit isn't money!
>
> If C has zero effect on prices, then we have W
> P = -----
> GDP
> Which equation is correct?
This last one, assuming W includes all forms of income (rent, interest,
etc) and not just wages.
> Yes, GNP would be better, but for the sake of simplicity,
> to avoid calculations of productivity of forein workers in American
> corporations, which should be included in GNP, I hope you will agree
> that GDP is acceptable.
Use whichever your happier with, I have to think to remember the
difference anyway.
> The question we started to debate was about unemployment rate.
> There are people in transition from one job to another.
> There are people who would accept only high-paid union job.
> Both these groups should not be counted as unemployed.
> If we count only those who really, truly can not find _any_ job,
> I believe, unemployment rate should be close to zero.
Unemployment statistics are calculated by asking a sample of the
population: 'are you currently employed"', 'If not, are you looking for
work?'. The labor force is employed + looking for work. And
unemployment is looking for work / labor force. How do you measure
those who CAN'T find a job or don't want the work available?
>
> Now suppose that we have 5% unemployment, and all those workers
> are either in transition or don't want to work.
> Then we have full employment.
> Suppose now, we fired a couple of million workers to increase
> unemployment to 10%, and they really, truly can not find
> any job, unionized or otherwise.
> What direction will prices go?
Down. People who are desperate will work for less, that will bid wages,
and thus production costs down. They're also consuming less, which
reduces demand and thus prices.
>
> On one hand, lower labor price should show up in lower prices.
> On the other hand, fewer workers will produce smaller GDP.
> I'd say that small GDP will drive consumer prices higher,
> contrary to what textbooks say.
Luxemburg has a smaller GDP than the US, the prices are about the same
though. Low output and high income/demand will bid prices up. But the
unemployed don't consume as much as the employed, so both output and
demand will be lower. Prices go up only when goods become scarce
relative to the money chasing them.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> > does not cause higher prices?
> Correct. The velocity of money is determined only by how fast it's
> spent. Since borrowed money will have to be repaid at some point, being
> able to borrow more won't increase spending over the economy (repaying
> the money you borrowed means your spending will then be reduced).
Shawn, you are a great debator. You answer is correct.
But there is a problem of a business cycle.
Higher prices during expansion - and lower prices during contruction.
A long time ago I came up with this explanation.
Expansion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ \
\ / \
\_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/ \_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Recession Recession
The problem is this.
Money is created and destroyed in the course of the business cycle.
Money is created in the form of credit.
Money is destroyed when credit is reduced.
My understanding is that there is a very high correlation
between business cycle and money supply cycle.
I believe that increased money supply causes expansion,
and reduced money supply causes recession.
Once again - money supply is, basically, credit.
To regulate economy you have to keep steady supply of money.
Check what you don't like here.
> > The question we started to debate was about unemployment rate.
> > There are people in transition from one job to another.
> > There are people who would accept only high-paid union job.
> > Both these groups should not be counted as unemployed.
> > If we count only those who really, truly can not find _any_ job,
> > I believe, unemployment rate should be close to zero.
> Unemployment statistics are calculated by asking a sample of the
> population: 'are you currently employed"', 'If not, are you looking for
> work?'. The labor force is employed + looking for work. And
> unemployment is looking for work / labor force. How do you measure
> those who CAN'T find a job or don't want the work available?
> > Now suppose that we have 5% unemployment, and all those workers
> > are either in transition or don't want to work.
> > Then we have full employment.
> > Suppose now, we fired a couple of million workers to increase
> > unemployment to 10%, and they really, truly can not find
> > any job, unionized or otherwise.
> > What direction will prices go?
> Down. People who are desperate will work for less, that will bid wages,
> and thus production costs down. They're also consuming less, which
> reduces demand and thus prices.
Shawn, there is a problem.
Wages can not go lower than minimum wages.
This provides floor. At some point...
I will think about it and post an example.
This is very interesting for me.
-- Michael Vilkin.
Harold
<swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
>Michael Vilkin wrote:
[edited]
>
>> The question we started to debate was about unemployment rate.
>> There are people in transition from one job to another.
>> There are people who would accept only high-paid union job.
>> Both these groups should not be counted as unemployed.
>> If we count only those who really, truly can not find _any_ job,
>> I believe, unemployment rate should be close to zero.
>
>Unemployment statistics are calculated by asking a sample of the
>population: 'are you currently employed"', 'If not, are you looking for
>work?'. The labor force is employed + looking for work. And
>unemployment is looking for work / labor force. How do you measure
>those who CAN'T find a job or don't want the work available?
>
If they are looking for a job, they are counted, whether they can't
find work or even if they don't want the
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Now suppose that we have 5% unemployment, and all those workers
>> are either in transition or don't want to work.
>> Then we have full employment.
>> Suppose now, we fired a couple of million workers to increase
>> unemployment to 10%, and they really, truly can not find
>> any job, unionized or otherwise.
>> What direction will prices go?
>
>Down. People who are desperate will work for less, that will bid wages,
>and thus production costs down. They're also consuming less, which
>reduces demand and thus prices.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On one hand, lower labor price should show up in lower prices.
>> On the other hand, fewer workers will produce smaller GDP.
>> I'd say that small GDP will drive consumer prices higher,
>> contrary to what textbooks say.
>
>Luxemburg has a smaller GDP than the US, the prices are about the same
>though. Low output and high income/demand will bid prices up. But the
>unemployed don't consume as much as the employed, so both output and
>demand will be lower. Prices go up only when goods become scarce
>relative to the money chasing them.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
------
While there is much information to be gained in the newsgroups,
the signal/noise ratio is depressingly low. I find this situation
is best remedied by use of a killfile. Simply dumping the
noisemakers and people who demonstrate to me that they appear
incapable of learning, has had a profound effect on my enjoyment of
these groups, I can assure you.
Shawn A. Wilson
> The problem is this.
> Money is created and destroyed in the course of the business cycle.
> Money is created in the form of credit.
> Money is destroyed when credit is reduced.
Uh, no.
>
> My understanding is that there is a very high correlation
> between business cycle and money supply cycle.
> I believe that increased money supply causes expansion,
> and reduced money supply causes recession.
It might have been true once, not anymore.
>
> Once again - money supply is, basically, credit.
Not really.
> To regulate economy you have to keep steady supply of money.
This part is VERY true.
> Shawn, there is a problem.
> Wages can not go lower than minimum wages.
> This provides floor. At some point...
> I will think about it and post an example.
> This is very interesting for me.
When wages try to fall below whatever floor is set, either inflation
will set in to eliminate the difference in purchasing power between the
minimum wage and the free market wage, or people will be thrown out of
work to bring the equilibrium wage to the legal minimum. In the real
world, people whose labor aren't worth the minimum wage lose their jobs,
so the minimum wage doesn't actually help the poor. It just creates a
lottery of who will be employed at the minimum and who will be
unemployed.
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > The problem is this.
> > Money is created and destroyed in the course of the business cycle.
> > Money is created in the form of credit.
> > Money is destroyed when credit is reduced.
> Uh, no.
OK, Shawn, then explain briefly the concept of credit,
and how a new loan would increase money supply.
After that demonstrate my mistake.
> > My understanding is that there is a very high correlation
> > between business cycle and money supply cycle.
> > I believe that increased money supply causes expansion,
> > and reduced money supply causes recession.
> It might have been true once, not anymore.
It was in '70s, when I was studying the problem of
instability of American economy.
I came to the conclusion that it was not "inherent instability
of capitalistic economy", as we were taught.
The real problem is to determine what causes what - and how much.
I still believe that instability of economy is caused by
instability of credit.
Anyway, what have changed since '70s?
> > Once again - money supply is, basically, credit.
> Not really.
My fault. I should have said: "_Increase_ in money supply is,
basically, _increase_ in credit.
> > To regulate economy you have to keep steady supply of money.
> This part is VERY true.
Now, how can we keep _steady_ supply of money?
I know only one way. That's _steady_ credit.
That's only if you agree that credit affects money supply,
and money supply affects, in turn, prices.
Here is one example.
In 1992 it was very difficult to get any credit.
Money was tight. I could not get a mortgage.
I was asked to put down some 20 to 25% as a downpayment.
And prices of houses were depressed.
Now everyone is qualified.
Bad credit, no credit, slow credit, lousy credit, crappy,
flimsy, inferior - any credit is good.
There will be a ton of bad real estate loans. Later.
Suppose now, you know that the banks are going to tighten
this loose credit to the point that people will need
20 or 25% down with perfect credit.
Will it affect prices of housing? Down, right?
You made a good argument that $100,000 borrowed from
a bank must be repaid, and that's why increased credit
should not increase prices.
That's a very good argument, especially if we take to the
account that the borrower will repay not only principal,
but, probably, another $100,000 in interest.
Borrowed $100,000. Must pay back $200,000.
How this can increase prices?
Yet, real estate prices go higher.
Real estate prices today prove this point.
Too much credit, too fast, is pushing prices higher.
Then this equation is correct.
W + C P = Prices C = Credit
P = ------- where W = Wages G = Goods
G
If you still don't agree, then tell me when to build my house, -
now, when credit is loose, or later, when credit will be tight?
And when would you sell your house, - now or later,
when credit is tight?
Maybe, accelerated lending game means something?
-- Michael Vilkin.
Shawn A. Wilson
> OK, Shawn, then explain briefly the concept of credit,
> and how a new loan would increase money supply.
> After that demonstrate my mistake.
Here's one: what happens to the money supply when the loan is paid
off? It goes down. doesn't it? Across the economy, the loans be
granted are offset by the loans being paid off.
> > > Once again - money supply is, basically, credit.
>
> > Not really.
>
> My fault. I should have said: "_Increase_ in money supply is,
> basically, _increase_ in credit.
Not at all. If people spend money faster, the money supply has
increased without one cent of additional credit being extended.
>
> > > To regulate economy you have to keep steady supply of money.
>
> > This part is VERY true.
>
> Now, how can we keep _steady_ supply of money?
> I know only one way. That's _steady_ credit.
> That's only if you agree that credit affects money supply,
> and money supply affects, in turn, prices.
Nope. Credit isn't money.
> Suppose now, you know that the banks are going to tighten
> this loose credit to the point that people will need
> 20 or 25% down with perfect credit.
> Will it affect prices of housing? Down, right?
Only in the short run, as people need to save longer to buy a house. In
the long run it won't matter.
>
> You made a good argument that $100,000 borrowed from
> a bank must be repaid, and that's why increased credit
> should not increase prices.
> That's a very good argument, especially if we take to the
> account that the borrower will repay not only principal,
> but, probably, another $100,000 in interest.
>
> Borrowed $100,000. Must pay back $200,000.
> How this can increase prices?
>
> Yet, real estate prices go higher.
> Real estate prices today prove this point.
> Too much credit, too fast, is pushing prices higher.
No, it isn't the credit that affects housing demand, it's interest
rates.
>
> Then this equation is correct.
>
> W + C P = Prices C = Credit
> P = ------- where W = Wages G = Goods
> G
>
> If you still don't agree, then tell me when to build my house, -
> now, when credit is loose, or later, when credit will be tight?
Depends on the interest rates. Would you buy your house in a loose
credit market when they're 10%, or a tight credit market when they're
5%?
Michael Vilkin
> Michael Vilkin wrote:
> > OK, Shawn, then explain briefly the concept of credit,
> > and how a new loan would increase money supply.
> > After that demonstrate my mistake.
> Here's one: what happens to the money supply when the loan is paid
> off? It goes down. doesn't it? Across the economy, the loans be
> granted are offset by the loans being paid off.
I agree that loans are offset.
My point is that during a business cycle there is always a big
disbalance of consumer loans granted and consumer loans paid off.
By consumer loans I mean all money loaned to consumers, including
mortgages.
When there is much more money loaned than paid off, then money
is created, and it fuels expansion.
When there is much more money paid off than loaned, then money
is destroyed, and it knocks the economy into a recession.
I came to this conclusion back in '70s, but I did not have
a chance to publish it in the USSR.
Capitalistic economy was supposed to have inherent instability.
The idea that capitalistic economy may avoid recessions
by means of regulating credit, - this was heresy.
> > Now, how can we keep _steady_ supply of money?
> > I know only one way. That's _steady_ credit.
> > That's only if you agree that credit affects money supply,
> > and money supply affects, in turn, prices.
> Nope. Credit isn't money.
But the fact remains that a new loan does increase money supply.
$100,000 of a new mortgage is $100,000 of new money.
$100,000 of new money equals exactly $100,000 of new debt.
Credit = new money = debt = $100,000. Credit is money.
If you still don't agree, then what is credit?
And what is money?
> > Suppose now, you know that the banks are going to tighten
> > this loose credit to the point that people will need
> > 20 or 25% down with perfect credit.
> > Will it affect prices of housing? Down, right?
> Only in the short run, as people need to save longer to buy a house. In
> the long run it won't matter.
I agree. Only in the short run economy will be knocked down
to a recession, but later it will recover. That's my point.
> > You made a good argument that $100,000 borrowed from
> > a bank must be repaid, and that's why increased credit
> > should not increase prices.
> > That's a very good argument, especially if we take to the
> > account that the borrower will repay not only principal,
> > but, probably, another $100,000 in interest.
> > Borrowed $100,000. Must pay back $200,000.
> > How this can increase prices?
> > Yet, real estate prices go higher.
> > Real estate prices today prove this point.
> > Too much credit, too fast, is pushing prices higher.
> No, it isn't the credit that affects housing demand, it's interest
> rates.
> > Then this equation is correct.
> >
> > W + C P = Prices C = Credit
> > P = ------- where W = Wages G = Goods
> > G
> > If you still don't agree, then tell me when to build my house, -
> > now, when credit is loose, or later, when credit will be tight?
> Depends on the interest rates. Would you buy your house in a loose
> credit market when they're 10%, or a tight credit market when they're
> 5%?
I thought about it, too.
I will need to put down at least 25% of the price of the house.
Then I will get the remaining 75% easily, no matter how tight
they are.
Basically, the more tight is credit, the fewer people will get it,
the less money will chase that house, the cheaper I'll buy it.
Can we agree on this?
My real problem is not to buy a cheap house.
I want to find statistics about consumer loans.
At least, about money supply.
There is a high correlation between money supply cycle
and business cycle. At least it was back then.
Where can we find those statistics?
-- Michael Vilkin.
so...@my-dejanews.com
wrote in article <3646A3...@columbia-center.org>:
>Craig wrote:
>> Not to defend Pinochet here, but when I was in Chile, people were pretty open
>> about how bad the situation was before him. Sometimes the lesser of two evils
>> is still evil. However, this is not the proper place to discuss this.
>I'm quite certain that "people were pretty open about how bad the
>situation was before him", given that they might be tortured and killed
>for disagreeing with that sentiment.
I may assure you that there was indeed a pro Pinochet attitude among the
Chilean middle class, afraid of the directions taken by the Allende
government. Such approval exists even today.
Harold
People like Dan hate Pinochet not because people died, after all, they
were dying under Allende already. He is angry that Pinochet stopped
the progress of the Socialist movements in South America.
In the end though, Pinochet is just a scapegoat of a movement that was
soon to die anyway, the only question was how many innocent people
would die with it.
Regards, Harold
-------------
"It is very clear that political propagandists that accuse Stalin
of the murder of millions, simply don't know what they are
talking about. Or more appropriately, seek to distort the
truth in order to justify their own sick political goals."
---Scott Nudds, 6/6/96, Usenet
Message-ID: <4p5tr7$i...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
Kingmouse
All human structural organization, starting with hunter
gatherer, is based on slavery.
It is the slave, that person which undeniably establishes the
bottom of the hierarchal structure, that provides the basis for
deffinition of the classes (elements) of that structure.
Manumission, the promice of non-slave status in the future,
is the the classic and contemporary means to motivate the slave to
accomplish complex tasks.
The only thing that has happened is that the exogenous
pressures of discoveries, commencing about the Enlightnement, and the
more complex tasks needed to be accomplished due to those discoveries,
has broadened the tasks so that they possess more non-slave qualities;
elements of freedom, whether provided by law or finances. Whether
the "indenture" time has been shortened is, I think, subject to
discussion. We call our economic system, that which best accomodates
the demanded changes in those tasks, "capitalism". The old status
of "freeman", that of complete non-slave status+ is almost
forgotten. Is generally held in contemt by the other slaves.
Although also coveted.
But the slave concept is still totally and absolutely, even
harshly, in effect. As illustrated by comments indicating that fear
of unemployment is an acceptable motivating mechanism in an economy.
All the political-economic arguments come down to two things:
1. The non-slave qualities of the tasks are being increased or
decreased.
2. We do or do not, can or cannot live in a different structure.
And all the economic-political arguments are distorted according
to the degree of denial of that reality.
J. Bryant
Bruce Norman Howard
>Dan Clore wrote:
>
>> Michael Vilkin wrote:
>> > Dan Clore wrote:
>> > > Michael Vilkin wrote:
>>
>> > > > We need fair labor laws.
>> > > > Employers should have a right to fire anyone with or without
>> > > > explanation. No more labor union bullshit.
>> >
>> > > In other words, to you "fair labor laws" means massive government
>> > > intervention in the economy against laborers. Interesting viewpoint.
How
>> > > far are you willing to go with this reform? As far as Pinochet, who
had
>> > > people tortured and murdered for labor organizing?
>> >
>> > Against laborers? No. Against _unionized_ laborers.
>> > See the difference?
>> > Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
>> > They are paid a free market price for labor.
>> > A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
It is easy to understand. The problem is that people end up on the scrap
heap. We must try to prevent that. The market for labour must have a floor
which allows people to live with dignity.
>> If workers unionize and bargain collectively, go on strike, etc etc etc,
>> then the result of that action *is* the "free market price for labor" --
>> get it yet? I doubt it, so see if you can figure this out: you don't
>> have a free market when the government intervenes in the market. You are
>> quite literally calling for government intervention in the market, and
>> then claiming the result is a "free market". I mean, how fucking stupid
>> can you get? Here it is again, schematically:
>>
>> Government intervention = unfree market
>> No government intervention = free market
>
>Fine. Then why does the government interfere on behalf of unions and other
>special interest groups. To wit:
>
>1) Government laws mandate rehiring striking workers. In a free market,
>striking workers could be replaced at will. They went on strike; if
someone
>else will do the job, so be it.
>
>2) Closed shop laws. Granted, many of these are going, but I consider it
>government interference to tell me whom I can hire.
>
>3) Affirmative action. Ditto. If I want to be a racist fuck and not hire
a
>superior person because of some aesthetic reason, so be it. In the long
run, my
>costs will be hire, and I'll probably go out of business.
>
>> See how it works? In case you're wondering, you like the first best.
>
>So, it appears, do you. The government intervenes heavily in the private
>sector. I, for one, want it out. Some agencies, like OSHA, have a
legitimate
>purpose. Others, however, are nothing more than social engineering.
>
>> > Pinochet? Yes, he is one of the greatest people of this century.
>> > If not him, who knows what banditos-communistos would do in
>> > Latin America? His only fault is he didn't kill enough of banditos.
The end never justifies the means: never!
>> So you think it's okay to murder people for crimes they *might* commit
>> sometime in the future, when there isn't even any evidence that the
>> might commit those crimes? And BTW, why aren't all the rich folks who
>> got massive corporate welfare from the Pinochet regime "banditos"?
>
>Not to defend Pinochet here, but when I was in Chile, people were pretty
open
>about how bad the situation was before him. Sometimes the lesser of two
evils
>is still evil. However, this is not the proper place to discuss this.
>
>Cheers...Craig
>---
>Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
>and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
I am sure that the Universe is infinite and that humans are not stupid.
>Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Hell is not understanding other people and not having the compassion to try.
One must accept that often one doesn't.
>Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain - Schiller
Not true.
Michael Vilkin
(...)
> > See the difference?
> > Almost 90% of American workforce is not organized in unions.
> > They are paid a free market price for labor.
> > A free market for labor. What is so difficult to understand?
> It is easy to understand. The problem is that people end up on the scrap
> heap. We must try to prevent that. The market for labour must have a floor
> which allows people to live with dignity.
First, what is "scrap heap"?
Second, how would you "allow people to live with dignity"?
I'd abolish welfare and put the bums to make bricks.
I'd create government brick factories.
I'd reduce time on unemployment. Too much fraud, at least here in NY.
You can't find a job on the private market? Come here, government
has job for you on a brick factory.
I'd create government nursing homes.
A welfare queen can't find a job? Come here, a nursing home
has a job for you.
When you give people jobs, whatever jobs they might be, you
give them dignity.
Beside, someone has to do it, is that to make bricks or
to clean shit in a nursing home.
What is your definition of "to live with dignity"?
To consume more? To produce less?
-- Michael Vilkin.