Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I don't even remember how this all came up, but wouldn't the unions be a nice balance against the business community (as a whole, and specifically)? In terms of lobbying and campaign contributions?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

without unions most of us wouldn't be here- paid handsomely to waste time. however, yours is an inapt analogy. Corporations in theory exist to maximize efficiency and production. They might not always but usually they try and maximize the profits.

A union, however, must justify its existance contract after contract. Whether more benfits are warrented or affordable doesn't really matter- the Unions want to get more each year.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Unions don't care about overall growth. If the economy is growing, and creating new jobs, that does not help the unions. They need the old jobs not to be threatened. Change is their worst nightmare. Businesses are not altruistic, and when they are out for the own interest the don't push for good laws. It is the Business Community in General that pushes for good law, not because their are altruistic, but it is just generally what is good for the business community is good for America because it is the business community that provides the growth.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Ah, yes, capitalism and democracy, hand-in-hand but without those pesky things like free speech.

I'd suggest you well-funded proponents of free trade argue over the issue rather than attack those who oppose you. The problem, as always, is that every bit of "growth" you advocate comes with costs, and those costs somehow don't get born by those who benefit from the growth. Expect those who pay the costs to be unhappy. Do not expect them to give up their livelihood so that they can worship at the alter of the Free Market. Thus, in order to win your arguments, you may need to accept the idea first that not everyone is worshipping at your altar.

Now why don't you want unions to be able to argue against policies that will hurt many of their individual members again?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I'll bet you know Bilmore.

It's nice to know that all unions are a single monolithic block with a single voice and a single narrow perspective on the world. Luckily the capital "B" Business Community will watch out for us all?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

No. Because they go against the business community when the business community is trying to make the economy more flexible and dynamic. And unions don't care at all about the environment so they are no help in that sphere.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

"Flexible and dynamic"? You're taking the concept of "wiggle word" to new heights. The only flexible and dynami thing business is doing is figuring out ways to lower costs. Production/revenue hasn't been moving up, so businesses for the last several years have had to "grow" profits by cutting costs. Thats the big lie in the Bush economy. The numbers don't reflect growth - they reflect wringing the same amount of product out of less bodies and machinery.

What unions are doing is trying to keep a certain standard wage for their workers. They are necessary. And you're seeing why right now. If allowed, employers will - in fact, they have an obligation to - reduce costs as much as possible. Workers are a cost. The reason so many white collar workers are getting shitty pay and shitty benefits is because they have no bargaining power. They're becoming what the blue collar workers were before unions. Business has no "check" at the moment.

I agree that theoretically, business should be allowed to wipe out as many workers as it likes. The problem is, I'm not sure that society benefits from that arrangement.

Ayn Rand, much as I like her views, was, from a practical perspective, an idiot.

Huh?
 

How many instances are you aware of in which a husband and wife commit a violent crime, are both convicted (or plead) and are sentenced concurrently? And in how many instances was one of those sentences less than a year?

Seems to me that you're complianing about a very small set of cases of violent crime. I doubt such an arrangement would have been contemplated if they had both be sentenced to a lot of time.

BTW, can you honestly say you would be equally worried about kids' living with their violent parents or with the Fastows? Methinks there are costs, as opposed to benefits, of depriving the children of their parents in this case.

None of this is to say, however, that everyone involved shouldn't have gotten more time and bigger asset forfeitures.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

This makes no sense from an economic perspective, and it turns out to be false. For example, unions have been key supporters of drilling in the ANWR.

medical marijuana
 

Guns near schools, but that's about it. I'm surprised that Rehnquist, who's usually a statist, was in dissent. And that Scalia was not. Although I haven't read the opinions.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

What about when the business community is trying to get worker safety laws repealed/modified? Unions are probably quite flexible about how businesses -- other than the one their members are employed -- conduct themselves. ILGW vs. Steelworkers, for example.

You are such a freak about seeing things you don't like as lacking any shades of grey, but being able to appreciate the finer subtleties of what you perceive to be basically on your side.

I'm thinking this is going to be another one of those "you just don't get it" things like your whole higher power crap thing.

Huh?
 

Oh whatever. I bet couples are convicted on tax evasion type stuff all the time.

No, kids shouldn't live with murderer parents or rapist parents. Duh.

Also, duh obviously this is better for the kids. Though what the costs really would be of having both parents gone at the same time, given that there's a shitload of money and apparently relatives of an age to take care of the kids (went to high school with RT, even), I am not sure. Like whoever said (hank?), this is what boarding school is for.

medical marijuana
 

For some good discussion of the opinions, check out the Volokh Conspiracy. (One of the contributors there argued the case against the government.)

Huh?
 

Not with the innocent spouse rules, right? And I doubt there's a lot of prison time for both spouses anyway--one of them will blame the other for the shady financial practices. Don't you watch Desparate Housewives?

But that's not a violent crime--the question was why white collar crims. get "special" treatment.

medical marijuana
 

A lamentable, but true, observation from one of the posts:

• " A decade later, the Republican Congress is vying with the Democratic Congresses of the 1930's and 1960's as the biggest supporter of increased federal power in American history. "
  

Huh?
 

Innocent spouse doesn't work if the spouse isn't innocent.

And my question was why do these particular people get special treatment.

Huh?
 

Do you think her kids are taken care off?

http://www.conservativegroundswell.c...ed_teacher.jpg

Huh?
 

Are you suggesting she bit off more than she could chew?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Yes, but the "business community" does very little lobbying -- virtually none compared to the amount done by individual companies and sectors, virtually all of which are happy to have protectionist, anti-growth legislation. If the makers of buggy-whips had had a good lobbyist....

Lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce can be pro-growth in a beneficial way. But they can also be anti-tax (i.e., pro-deficit), anti-worker safety, anti-environment, and pro-welfare (i.e., oppose increasing the minimum wage or providing health insurance and let gov't bear the burden) in ways that are very damaging.

I agree with you in general about a lot of union lobbying, but I'm sure glad for some of the basic worker safety and safety net legislation that unions helped bring about.

Business lobbyists can also be as hostile to change as unions, because the business community is often very short-sighted. Environmental laws and regs, for example, are seen as a threat to existing business rather than as an opportunity for new businesses to be created. The reason behind seems obvious -- the Chamber of Commerce is funded by existing business, not by those that may be created in the future.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

And while many unions opposed NAFTA, I believe others supported them. NAFTA, after all, was a big benefit to longshoremen and dockworkers.

Imagine that -- unions acting to further the selfish interests of their members. It sounds almost.... like capitalism. No wonder Spanky hates it.

Huh?
 

The Fastows sold the home they were building in River Oaks prior to any of the plea deals (I'm sure their house in Southampton is quite nice, anyway). I doubt they're really worried about money, anyway - she comes from a wealthy family. By the way, Lea was doing time at the maximum security fortress in downtown Houston, hardly a country club, and I doubt the threadcount on her sheets were much higher than Hank's IQ.

et: fix tense.

Huh?
 

maybe, but sheets equated to Hank best be percale, bitch.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Well, that'll never be cured. Other than providing an inheritancce for their kids, deep down inside, most folks ain't thinking too far beyond their own lifetimes. We're kind of wired that way.

Huh?
 

Why if you already have a stack of cash would you risk your life stealing to get more? If I get $5mil, I'm gone. Out. I'll march straight to City Hall, naked, and renounce my law degree on the desk of the closest sitting judge. I may even take a dump in the courtroom like that drunk on the airplane a few years back... Then off to pick a modest vacation home and pull a serious godamned JD Salinger. I'd appears solely in wild, rambling editorial letters to magazines and national newspapers. The rest of my time would be devoted to making documentaries making fun of just every sacred cow of American culture. Oh, I have a list...

Oh, and orgies of course.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

This is basically a "no, because they disagree with me."

In other words, those damn Founders didn't know squat compared to what Milty and the Chicago boys knew when they were running Chile.

Huh?
 

Has the Mrs. signed off on this?

Huh?
 

Poll (because why should the FB have all the fun and it changes the subject):

What is your personal "I am so outa here" figure?

What will you do if you get it (excluding ways to spend it)?

Me: $10 mil (though, honestly, if I got $5 mil I'd probably throw in the towel). I'd dye my hair International Klein Blue and wear my Motorhead T-shirt when I came into the office to quit (and retain our T&E guy). Then I would take up (bad) painting.

Huh?
 

You know the real answer, right? I mean, I haven't been following this entire discussion, but the answer in the case of the Fastows is that the govt wanted that plea deal with Andy. Someone somewhere decided that despite the clearly out-of-control crooked things he did either Lay or Skilling or both would be the top prize for the DA, so they worked with Fastow to get his dirt on the others. They must have decided that Lea was small potatoes and that helping her cut a deal that allowed one of them to be out at all times was worth it in the long-run to get the guys in control.

Or, put another way, just go watch the movie. Somehow so far Lay and Skilling have managed to avoid a lot of the public scorn that headed Andy "Scapegoat" Fastow's* way, but I tend to trust the assessment of the DA's office that pulling in one or both of them would be a coup.



*This is not to say that he wasn't committing fraud, I'm just saying that Lay/Skilling did an amazing job spinning it into a story about an out-of-control CFO and there was really a lot more going on than just that.

Huh?
 

To quit my job today and go on hiatus with the realization that someday I might have to work again? $2 million. I place quite a premium on having fun while you are still young enough to enjoy it though, so I might mortgage my future to live a little today.

To retire forever and live off of investments? $5 million, but I have very little required overhead. Other than vacations and dining out.

Huh?
 

I doubt I'd dye my hair blue, but $10m is a good magnitude. That would safely spin off $100-200k/year in interest.

The problem is, even with that I'd a) be worried it wouldn't last and b) still want to do something intellectual.

Huh?
 

(a) 2

(b) Yeah, but who cares? I could wear away/satisfy that ambition through golf, crappy painting and writing piece-of-shit unpublished novels.

Huh?
 

Perhaps I could too, but I'm not sure. I'd more likely want to take up expensive avocations. Retirement isn't cheap, unless you want it to be boring. I mean, a beach house and a yacht don't come cheap.

Huh?
 

Boring, boring, and more boring. I would lose my mind.

Huh?
 

Don't worry, strip club visits are interspersed between crappy painting sessions. It inspires the art.

Huh?
 

This is how I know I'm not a workoholic. I would not miss it. Not for a minute. If I were independently wealthy, I could walk away from the rat-in-a-maze routine without a single glance back. And I'm pretty sure I could find interesting and fun ways to spend my time for at least 2 years before it even became challenging. I have a few friends who have spent hiatuses from their careers (after collecting a bronze parachute or just saving up and ditching it all for a while) having the best time of their lives. Scuba diving in Costa Rico, exploring New Zealand, etc. Oh, how I'd miss the intellectual pursuits. Yeah, right.

Holy shit. I'm the female Sebby.

Huh?
 

GIANT ASS FUCKING 2!

Well, except for the female part.

aV

Huh?
 

Waitaminnit. Gatti said he'd spend his time at "golf, crappy painting and writing piece-of-shit unpublished novels." That is ever so slightly different from scuba diving in Costa Rica (or her brother, Costa Rico), etc.

I could find plenty of interesting ways to spend my time if I were not working. But they would cost a bit more than sitting in my Gatti-garrett writing the next Great American Downtown Los Angelean Nothing Else To Do Unpublished Novel. (Shit, by the time you say that phrase, the next one probably already got written.)

Huh?
 

Ahem. Down here, those are called "commercials."

Huh?
 

So I was ignoring the point of your post and instead using it as a jumping off point for my own little rant? Told you I'm the female Sebby.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Sidd - this is just wrong. I don't know where you get this. Business organizations and associations are the most signficant lobbyist in State Capitals in the National Capitals for Republicans. Whenver a bill comes up in Sacramento the first thing the Repubicans ask is "where does the chamber stand." You have the Manufacturere Assocition, Tech Net etc.

Most of the lobbying they do today is anti-competition. Pro-tariffs, ant-flexible hours, limiting the type of businesses that non union companys get into. They were against deregulation of the Arilne Industry, the Phone company. etc.

That is nice in theory but it just does not match up to practical application. Since I have been invovled in California State Politics (six years) most bills that effect the economy or business come down to the Chamber v. The Unions. The Unions are always on the side of regulation and restrictions where the Chamber is on the other side. The Unions passed a law that ended flexible hours in the silicon valley (people could not work a four day ten hour workday), they want to stop Costco from selling food, they did not want state government contracts to go to competitive bidding, the wanted to keep the workers compensation system in a state that was strangling business etc.