|
I was recently in a debate over the relevancy of labor unions. I think I made my points pretty clearly, but I was caught off-guard by the claim that unions take fees from members and use them to sponsor partisan political campaigns. Now I know about OpenSecrets, and I know that labor does in fact have a lot of political clout. But I was under the impression that this clout was gained using PACs [which the CIO apparently 'invented' decades ago] which only takes donations. This is the key word: donations. Can any union members or really anyone else shed some light on this? Also any info about the UAW's role in relation to the auto bailouts in 2008/2009 would be much appreciated.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Emden posted:I was recently in a debate over the relevancy of labor unions. I think I made my points pretty clearly, but I was caught off-guard by the claim that unions take fees from members and use them to sponsor partisan political campaigns. Now I know about OpenSecrets, and I know that labor does in fact have a lot of political clout. But I was under the impression that this clout was gained using PACs [which the CIO apparently 'invented' decades ago] which only takes donations. This is the key word: donations. Can any union members or really anyone else shed some light on this? Most unions don't use fees for political contributions, it's usually a separate opt-in fund you can pay into. Also "partisanship" is a red herring, bullshit argument used by easily-duped idiots. Unions donate to pro-labor politicians, who are usually Democrats but sometimes Republicans. Period. Who the gently caress are they supposed to give money to? Anti-labor politicians? Are they not supposed to give money to any politician so that they are unable to get some kind of political protection against anti-labor legislation? You donate to the politicians who support you. The "but... but... unions give money to Democrats!" is just another bullshit retard Republican talking point to distract from the overall debate. If someone uses that argument, just ask them "Why should unions give money to Republicans? Why should they not give money at all? Why do you support politicians you like? Why should corporations be allowed to give money to politicians? Why do corporations give money to politicians?" If you ask a Republican these questions, they'll either do so many mental backflips that they can't make a cogent argument, or this will happen to them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA The main issue is that it's a debate in the first place. MOST people work for someone else. MOST people do not own businesses or run corporations. Shouldn't MOST people be able to work together to counter the immense power that capital holds over labor? It's just a stupid debate, and it only exists because of completely retarded Republican logic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Emden posted:I was recently in a debate over the relevancy of labor unions. I think I made my points pretty clearly, but I was caught off-guard by the claim that unions take fees from members and use them to sponsor partisan political campaigns. Now I know about OpenSecrets, and I know that labor does in fact have a lot of political clout. But I was under the impression that this clout was gained using PACs [which the CIO apparently 'invented' decades ago] which only takes donations. This is the key word: donations. Can any union members or really anyone else shed some light on this? So wait, what's wrong with unions supporting politicians who support the interests of the union? I mean obviously they're insinuating that the politicians are horrible corrupt Democrat Party bosses who hate America, but on the most basic level, if people pay dues to a union that furthers their economic interests, and that union gives money to a politician who furthers their economic interests, what is the problem?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Aren't unions actually forbidden by law from using direct dues to support political campaigns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Emden posted:I was recently in a debate over the relevancy of labor unions. I think I made my points pretty clearly, but I was caught off-guard by the claim that unions take fees from members and use them to sponsor partisan political campaigns. Now I know about OpenSecrets, and I know that labor does in fact have a lot of political clout. But I was under the impression that this clout was gained using PACs [which the CIO apparently 'invented' decades ago] which only takes donations. This is the key word: donations. Can any union members or really anyone else shed some light on this? In many cases, people are required to pay money to a union in order to hold a job. Most notably, when it's a government job and they have a union shop or agency shop agreement. It is entirely possible that political spending by a union won't benefit the members themselves - for example if a teacher's union spends money to benefit an auto-workers union. Or a member may politically oppose the concept of unionization altogether, but are required to pay dues because of the union agreement with the employer. Which is why in many cases it is illegal or unconstitutional for a union to make political contributions without the explicit consent of the donors, particularly when the donor in question is a non-member. Amused to Death posted:Aren't unions actually forbidden by law from using direct dues to support political campaigns? I believe they are allowed to give political donations, but it's opt-in only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Well now that Right to Work laws are being passed all across the nation, the objections should obviously be weaker from Republicans right 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
How was Strikes and Unions in the Eastern Bloc? I'm wondering how labor relations were in there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Mans posted:How was Strikes and Unions in the Eastern Bloc? I'm wondering how labor relations were in there. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
So I'm discussing with anonymous online personalities about the current abortion debate going on in Texas. As you may or may not know, there was a 12-hour filibuster to push debate over the deadline to kill a bill that would increase barriers to abortion in that state. The filibuster fell 10 minutes short, after which the gallery erupted in chants and commotion, preventing a vote from taking place before the midnight deadline. The governor announced that since no vote occurred before the deadline, he was calling a second session. Putting aside any shady business that has come up with the vote, some argue that it is a violation of the people's will to call a new session. This sounds strange to me, as calling the session does not mean enacting the law, and the debate in the new session is what will allow the public's will to be heard. Is there something wrong with calling a new session of the Texas senate? What else would be expected in this situation? It seems like he intends to force a vote on this bill until there is a 'yes' or 'no' from the state Senate. Someone with more knowledge of parliamentary procedure than I have please enlighten me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
It's intense douchebaggery, and it's expensive to call a special session, both for the state but also for the legislators. But beyond that, unless there's a law or procedure banning it...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a specifice book covering 20th Century Iranian history, at least from post WWII (Mossadegh overthrow is what I'm most interested in) up to I guess the '79 revolution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
GD_American posted:Can anyone recommend a specifice book covering 20th Century Iranian history, at least from post WWII (Mossadegh overthrow is what I'm most interested in) up to I guess the '79 revolution? I can't recommend anything ahead of The Coup by Ervand Abrahamian http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1595588264 It's been a few years since I've really studied the subject (and there are smarter people around here) but it's a really good rundown of the coup/blowback/leadup to 79. It does a good job juxtaposing the powers in the US/UK with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Is there any watchdog group or interest group database that ranks business based on how "good" they are? Like in terms of environmentalism, sustainability, and workers rights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
So what did Morsi actually do that made the Egyptian coup necessary? I keep hearing things along the lines of "he consolidated power and ran the country for the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the Egyptian people", but it's usually vague and never any specifics. I also understand that he was unpopular due to the poor economy/lack of recovery in Egypt. Does anyone have examples of specific actions that Morsi took that are indicative of a trend that he consolidated power and ran the country for the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the Egyptian people, or any specific actions that turned the military and populace against him? I don't need a big list, like three or four specific actions that he took would be enough to explain why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
If someone can answer a relatively simple accounting question, I'd be grateful: what is it called when the government creates money by spending and eventually recouping through taxation and the like? I'm looking for the actual accounting term of this type of system. I've been trying to read about the history of money, debt and so on, but this one set of basic rules about the public account is driving me nuts. I want it explained in textbook form, with spreadsheets showing the actual work being done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Is there any watchdog group or interest group database that ranks business based on how "good" they are? Like in terms of environmentalism, sustainability, and workers rights? yes, Corporate Knights and Gandalf group do rankings each year. http://www.corporateknights.com/ This is for canadian listed companies who comply with an ISO ranking. The childrens fund, a private equity group does a similar poll as does IMF/World bank each year, however those are pay per view filings and are skewed based upon local IFUS and legal disclosures related to corporate request's for consultant information privileges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:If someone can answer a relatively simple accounting question, I'd be grateful: what is it called when the government creates money by spending and eventually recouping through taxation and the like? I'm looking for the actual accounting term of this type of system. I've been trying to read about the history of money, debt and so on, but this one set of basic rules about the public account is driving me nuts. I want it explained in textbook form, with spreadsheets showing the actual work being done. I'm trying to be a good, financially literate goon who is trying to fit (or infiltrate) D&D, so you need to be a bit more specific: - what are you looking for ? The government does not just create money. The government policies are considered Fiscal expenditures because they are expenses and capital expenditures done on by the sovereign corporations and partnerships of the trust of the congressional budget office that is appointed to execute the laws of the united states of America (itself, a sovereign limited partnership). Those expenses are cash outflows which can be seen on the treasury departments P&L statement and reconciled to the balance sheet. - This outflow is offset by a reconciliation to debt issues and taxes gained that are net cash inflows. The debts are backed by the land and assets of the USA trade credit, receivables and obligations that are issued by the Treasury as various interest bearing notes denominated in US dollars. The debt, because it holds a theoretically zero risk of default, is used as a base marker for the capital markets and is purchased by market operators in bond auctions in a way similar to when you need to get a roll over on your own expenses by your 'market' (aka your employer) giving you a salary. This is known as sterilized market operations. - Sometimes, the US federal reserve, a non-affiliated Delaware incorporated bank may purchase notes from the market place, that were issued by the treasury in exchange for their own notes, called united states dollars. These united states dollars are backed by the 'peoples' net assets, also known as anything and everything that is dollar denominated (aka. market confidence in their solvency) and (in times prior) their balance sheet solvency that was defined by their total purchasing power in relation to a basket of currencies denominated in gold and silver troy ounces. If you are looking for a good financial lay person book on the history of money start with Nail Furgesons's the ascent of money. After that, if you really want to be a sperglord banker ninja (not recommended for anyone under Managing Director with a few thousand hours of dull time on their hands and a bad hangover), I suggest start with journal of economic history, Douglass North. After you get a good base and get all the excel-chart fu you can dream of (and some nifty proofs via JSTOR) go pull Murray Rothchild's history of USA Banking (http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0945466331) where he goes through the history of economics, and how we moved from tithe to asset backed bonds, to mercantilism metal trading exchange swaps then on to fiat to metal, and finally fiat to fiat currency baskets and eurobond/bulldog's/yankees....
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
GD_American posted:Can anyone recommend a specifice book covering 20th Century Iranian history, at least from post WWII (Mossadegh overthrow is what I'm most interested in) up to I guess the '79 revolution? http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410 This was required reading for my modern history lecture. It was a really good read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
I'm looking for the accounting term that I can look up in an accounting textbook for the debits and credits system, particularly as to how it relates to national accounts, that economists like Warren Mosler say "just creates money". I'm reading Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, where he states that the way governments create money is by issuing it, which is buying goods and services from the public using a debit and credit system. The currency is given value by having what is basically an institution of money. I thought that was the point of fiat currency. Are you saying it's not? Also, you basically threw a bunch of terms at me which I know through accounting for a firm, but don't seem to be applicable in exactly the same way to a nation. In fact, economists keep saying as much: national accounting is not household or business accounting because households and businesses cannot create their own money. I want to understand that system with pretty graphs and spreadsheets. edit: also, hard to believe you recommend Niall Ferguson if you know anything about historical studies. Is there someone more reputable? edit2: I've been told the position of using accounting to describe the system is called chartalism, and I can find more by searching under that. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I'm looking for the accounting term that I can look up in an accounting textbook for the debits and credits system, particularly as to how it relates to national accounts, that economists like Warren Mosler say "just creates money". I'm reading Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, where he states that the way governments create money is by issuing it, which is buying goods and services from the public using a debit and credit system. The currency is given value by having what is basically an institution of money. I thought that was the point of fiat currency. Are you saying it's not? What you are thinking of is Modern Monetary Theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
karthun posted:What you are thinking of is Modern Monetary Theory. I really don't want to bust out a dry macroeconomics 101 book; maybe someone can suggest something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:
By 'reputable' I presume you mean something more conducive to a pleasant confirmation bias?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:By 'reputable' I presume you mean something more conducive to a pleasant confirmation bias?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410 Thanks, ordered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Yeah, chartalism and MMT are the same thing. Now I'm trying to figure out how the different schools compare to one another, but I can't really find a textbook definition of anything. MMT people seem to think they're just describing an accounting reality. Austrians seem to think its Keynesianism run amok. http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Yeah, that's actually the Mosler book I was referring to, but his lack of clear examples, charts or any kind of visual is making it difficult to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Yeah, that's actually the Mosler book I was referring to, but his lack of clear examples, charts or any kind of visual is making it difficult to understand. Stephanie Kelton (née Bell)'s 2000 JEI paper, "Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?" is probably more along the lines of what you're looking for. If your JSTOR access is limited, here's the draft version. (If you're into social accounting matrices and the like, you'll probably appreciate Godley & Lavoie's 2007 magnum opus, Monetary Economics, which is the canonical exposition of the stock-flow consistent approach that has become a mainstay of macroeconomists who strive to take accounting seriously.) Aeolius fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
I think I messed up in this argument about abortion and argued into a bad position. I'll post the response and then what my argument against this is going to be. Also, caveat this person isn't like someone I don't like, but I can't get around this argument they made. This is what I said initially, after finally getting them to address it etc.. multiple arguments about arguments of irrelevancy and ignorance, basically they just ignored what I said. quote:Or taking a moral stance that you aggressively vocalize but never actually act on is the ultimate in egocentrismif you truly believed it was murder, that people were being literally murdered where you live then you would do something to stop it and there by not stopping it you are condoning it and are just as guilty as those you accuse of being immoral. It's like saying " I am against people drowning, I refuse to believe that it is right to allow people to drown, " Meanwhile each week four people die at your local pool" but you're going out with signs saying " Stop Drownings" and it's got a picture of a drowned person on it. “There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction” - John Fitzgerald Kennedy quote:Your taking a moral stance verbally on murder. Anyone who has a hardline stance against abortion and takes the course of inaction is just as culpable morally as those they condemn. Your own inaction against this makes you immoral. This is may be my response to this argument. You're implying that first there is sin with this argument and the other issue is that society already has a method established to stop or punish that crime which is reflected in our laws. What you state is that abortion is unlawful under any circumstance. You're relying on a moral code outside of one that society has decided for itself and that moral code is from a specific source. So you're arguing for a enforcement on all people of a specific moral code from a specific source. This is no different than if there were a specific class of people that we were allowed to murder, you felt all murder regardless was wrong, someone of that class was being murdered in your community and you took no action to prevent it. I don't know about that argument simply because I don't think it's very strong, but really I think overall my first statement was pretty bad. Anyway yea, it was late at night and I probably shouldn't have argued that whole, "your morals are not everyone's morals" issue and yes is was a terrible terrible mistake to get into a debate on abortion and I regretted my decision immediately. BTW this is with someone that I am not all like " gently caress YOUUUU" to. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Hollis posted:Anyway yea, it was late at night and I probably shouldn't have argued that whole, "your morals are not everyone's morals" issue and yes is was a terrible terrible mistake to get into a debate on abortion and I regretted my decision immediately. Yeah it's always a dicey topic, I hope you don't lose a friendship over it! Anyway, I think it's unhelpful to bring people's own actions into the discussion when a moral issue is being discussed. I'm not saying that for reasons of etiquette or niceness, just because you can't actually win an argument that way. It just brings things off in tangential directions: there's no logical flaw in your interlocutor here saying "Yes, I am a constant moral failure, however this lamentable fact in no way affects my arguments against abortion/American foreign policy/corporate personhood/water fluoridation/what-have-you" I'm somewhat reminded of that smug image that points out the revelatory fact that some Occupy protestors use products created by corporations. It's an awful, clumsy piece of propaganda, intended solely to shift the perception of the group into the 'hypocrite' category, which, somehow, means their arguments don't have to be listened to... Bob Nudd fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jul 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
I'm suffering link and bookmark withdrawal with my computer down. Can someone link me a good article that explains why the US federal government budget is not the same as a household budget?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Check out http://parlidebate.com for some actual debates over topics that come up in D&D all the time. They're all collegiate level debates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
To chime in, I'd be happy if someone could point me to something more on the intellectual level of "I can't deal with your dumb rear end right now, read this link" for a reply email. Maybe not The Oatmeal levels of pablum, but something with nice soft chewable ideas and non-threatening language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
GD_American posted:To chime in, I'd be happy if someone could point me to something more on the intellectual level of "I can't deal with your dumb rear end right now, read this link" for a reply email. Maybe not The Oatmeal levels of pablum, but something with nice soft chewable ideas and non-threatening language. If you're interested in videos of debates that are specifically designed to convince people who have no experience with a particular issue, check out what I shared above your comment. It might not be your cup of tea, but it's worth a try I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:I'm suffering link and bookmark withdrawal with my computer down. Can someone link me a good article that explains why the US federal government budget is not the same as a household budget? If you really want a thorough MMT primer http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html is pretty extensive. A briefer and more direct answer to your question is available here: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why. The TLDR is that the US federal government can print dollars whereas the household cannot. If the household created its own currency, say offering homebucks to the children in exchange for chores and letting them turn them back in for TV hours then the household would be in the same situation with homebucks as the US federal government is with dollars. The household's ability to spend in homebucks is limited only by the ability of the economy (its children) to produce real goods and services (do chores).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If the household created its own currency, say offering homebucks to the children in exchange for chores and letting them turn them back in for TV hours then the household would be in the same situation with homebucks as the US federal government is with dollars. The household's ability to spend in homebucks is limited only by the ability of the economy (its children) to produce real goods and services (do chores). This is a fantastic analogy and one I'm going to use later on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 06:24
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
KernelSlanders posted:If you really want a thorough MMT primer http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html is pretty extensive. A briefer and more direct answer to your question is available here: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why. The austrian follow up question will be "What will happen when the government's spending exceeds the economies ability to produce real goods and services?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
karthun posted:The austrian follow up question will be "What will happen when the government's spending exceeds the economies ability to produce real goods and services?" Typically at that point you've entered into libertarian sci-fi territory, because you would need to not only fully employ the entire nation, but fully saturate the mechanisms of industry; railroads shipping goods that are already bought, State demand far outstripping supply. Take what we were doing during the height of Lend-Lease and multiply it to your hearts content. The Friedman argument can only work if we assume American industrial capacity and American consumer demands are very small, focused on locally-produced durable goods, using only expensive American materials. Everyone buying titanium locomotives made in Boise or some poo poo like that. Basically the United States has the capital and the industrial capacity for negative unemployment but modern economic policy doesn't even rely on Adam Smith anymore. The dynamic has boiled down to either higher stock prices or the horrors of communism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
karthun posted:The austrian follow up question will be "What will happen when the government's spending exceeds the economies ability to produce real goods and services?" I agree with everything Vulich the Subtle said, and want to add a few points. One way to spend beyond the economy's ability to produce is to destroy the real output of the economy. This is what happened in Zimbabwe in the 2000s. A set of terrible government policies including land reforms that de-mechanized farming caused a 50% reduction in agricultural output and pretty severe reduction in mining output. Gold production fell by 75% from 1998 to 2007. Real GDP per capita fell by around 50% in only a few years. It doesn't take an economist to know that if there isn't enough food for everyone, what food there is is going to be really expensive. Or, if you prefer, the demand curve for food is highly inelastic at the starvation bound. At this point, the government had to spend constantly increasing amounts of its currency to provision itself and we all know the result. Note though, that the real-economic collapse caused the hyperinflation, not the other way around. The other point I'd like to add is that generally an economy isn't going to go crashing over the full-output bound, but will approach it gradually. Most followers of MMT are proponents of a job guarantee. If one is in place, then as the private sector approaches full employment, government payroll will be dropping. This deficit reduction is automatically stabilizing as is the increase in tax receipts from a more productive economy. If once the economy is approaching full capacity (the goal right?) we start to see the inflation rate tick up, then we can always raise taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Are there any effective (to a Libertarian) lines-of-attack on the notion that government is wrong because you don't have a choice of participating?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:Are there any effective (to a Libertarian) lines-of-attack on the notion that government is wrong because you don't have a choice of participating? The only one I've ever gotten any traction with is the old saying, "If Men were angels, no government would be necessary." Since Men are not angels, we need a government to keep us in line. Beyond that, the choices are moving to a different country or living as a hermit on an island somewhere. If there's going to be people, there's going to need to be some sort of organization to prevent chaos. You also don't have a choice to participate in breathing, or get to pick what color the sky is. It's sort of the main reason Libertarians are so crazy - they refuse to acknowledge basic reality and simply insert their own fantasy when convenient.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:26
|
|
