A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Why don't you find this argument for compensation appropriate when it comes to free trade? Free trade with a country that has a lower standard of living bids down the price of labor and depresses wage. Why don't you want full and fair compensation to the workers getting shafted?

Please remind me where in the constitution I find the right to a livable wage?

[megaloman]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please remind me where in the constitution I find the right to a livable wage?

Same section as the Rights to Universal Health Care and Abortion. Make sure to use your Ex-Ray Specs.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please remind me where in the constitution I find the right to a livable wage?

I'm not talking constitutional law. I'm just talking Congressional action. Why shouldn't members of the Senate insist on full and fair compensation as a condition for consenting to any trade deal? Senators are elected to help their constituents' utility, not the world's. And fuck, for that matter, so is the President.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I'm not talking constitutional law. I'm just talking Congressional action. Why shouldn't members of the Senate insist on full and fair compensation as a condition for consenting to any trade deal? Senators are elected to help their constituents' utility, not the world's. And fuck, for that matter, so is the President.

Are you suggesting that these trade deals don't provide any benefits to US citizens?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Conservatism is no longer about small government. That pretense is O-V-E-R. Conservativism now means spending lots of money and borrowing to cover it.

Preferably in the name of God.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The operation was a clusterfuck, and it was Bush's.* I'm glad that we were trying to help the Somalis and all, because they certainly need the help, but we went in without giving much thought to the political dynamics there, and then got into a shooting war with one faction without even realizing it.

Two books about this from different perspectives, both very much worth reading:



Bowden's book is from the perspective of the U.S. military. Hartley is African and was a journalist in Mogadishu.

* eta: I didn't mean this to be nearly as harsh as it sounds. Bush got us into Somalia. Clinton inherited the mission, and by all accounts didn't pay much attention to it until things turned sour. The strategy of fighting with Aidid's clan belonged to military commanders, and can't really be attributed to either president.

Speaking of U.S. military perspective, there was a fascinating Frontline last night, which was entirely done while embedded with a unit in Southern Baghdad last November. I feel like you never get much perspective about what it is like on the ground from the main stream media, but this did a very good job. It was both hopeful and discouraging at the same time, but really made our troops looks professional and committed.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you suggesting that these trade deals don't provide any benefits to US citizens?

No, I'm not suggesting trade deals provide no benefits to US citizens. However, the benefits go to people in their capacity as consumers and somewhat as investors. Many people are hurt far worse in their capacity as workers than they are helped in their capacity as a consumer or investor, and they are not fully and fairly compensated. They are not retrained for work providing comparable wages, which often is impossible, and they are not compensated for being forced into jobs that pay lower wages.

[Adder]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, jesus, get over yourself.

2.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If the government is willing to incur these costs, and wants to seize the property by eminent domain to do some urban renewal, why not?

Here's my problem with the case, that I think may distinguish it, is: where is the collective action/holdout problem that requires government intervention? With RRs, there was at least the justification that the private developer (the RR) could not go out and buy up a straight strip of land because of holdouts. But here what's to prevent a developer from going in and buying up houses and redeveloping them? So what if Grandma Jones wants to sit on her land in her shanty? Her heirs can sell out.

The biggest hold-out problem I can see is that someone may perceive some externality--that is, her shanty goes up in value because of the surrounding development. Well, yeah, but that's called savvy buying and holding.

Is there a plausible argument that the developer needs all the land at once? 'Cause where I'm living, the builders buy a junk house on a medium-sized lot, and put up two mcmansions on postage stamps. Everyone wins--sellers, buyers, and taxing authority. And no need for a taking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
No, I'm not suggesting trade deals provide no benefits to US citizens. However, the benefits go to people in their capacity as consumers and somewhat as investors. Many people are hurt far worse in their capacity as workers than they are helped in their capacity as a consumer or investor, and they are not fully and fairly compensated. They are not retrained for work providing comparable wages, which often is impossible, and they are not compensated for being forced into jobs that pay lower wages.

I grew up at the epicenter of the fallout. Once upon a time people didn't buy foreign anything, and Detroit workers got very fat and lazy. then Americans outside michigan decided to buy Japanese cars.

Michigan went into a serious recession- but fuck that- everyone's toyota ran swell! Then, the Pennslyvania steel workers quit having jobs for making steel to ship to Detroit.....and then people starting buying whatever was cheapest.

The only way to maintain the US worker wage premium is to only buy American. That idea died 30 years ago. Tell your friends to get a degree because big bucks for factory jobs ain't happening no more- even if Flipper wins in '08.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
No, I'm not suggesting trade deals provide no benefits to US citizens. However, the benefits go to people in their capacity as consumers and somewhat as investors. Many people are hurt far worse in their capacity as workers than they are helped in their capacity as a consumer or investor, and they are not fully and fairly compensated. They are not retrained for work providing comparable wages, which often is impossible, and they are not compensated for being forced into jobs that pay lower wages.

Never mind that export also go up sharply...

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Here's my problem with the case, that I think may distinguish it, is: where is the collective action/holdout problem that requires government intervention? With RRs, there was at least the justification that the private developer (the RR) could not go out and buy up a straight strip of land because of holdouts. But here what's to prevent a developer from going in and buying up houses and redeveloping them? So what if Grandma Jones wants to sit on her land in her shanty? Her heirs can sell out.

The biggest hold-out problem I can see is that someone may perceive some externality--that is, her shanty goes up in value because of the surrounding development. Well, yeah, but that's called savvy buying and holding.

Is there a plausible argument that the developer needs all the land at once? 'Cause where I'm living, the builders buy a junk house on a medium-sized lot, and put up two mcmansions on postage stamps. Everyone wins--sellers, buyers, and taxing authority. And no need for a taking.

Well, in the particular case here, they were building a whole complex, not just individual houses. I'm not sure how much is housing, but the one thing I can think of is that so many "desirable" housing developments now are desirable partly because of restrictive mutual covenants, which are hard to do if you are buying up piecemeal.

ETA "adjacent to and complementing a brand new $300 million research facility for the pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, there would be condos, health clubs, a luxury hotel, shops, and other assorted mega-stuff. Most of the folks in town agreed to sell, but seven families, owning 15 homes, refused. They like their crumbly Victorians. So when the state tried to condemn their property, they sought injunctions."

I think it's interesting that 7 "families" own FIFTEEN houses [whoops, of course I mean homes] -- I'm thinking, some of these "families" are actually people who own rental property and are really just looking for more money.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, in the particular case here, they were building a whole complex, not just individual houses. I'm not sure how much is housing, but the one thing I can think of is that so many "desirable" housing developments now are desirable partly because of restrictive mutual covenants, which are hard to do if you are buying up piecemeal.

ETA "adjacent to and complementing a brand new $300 million research facility for the pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, there would be condos, health clubs, a luxury hotel, shops, and other assorted mega-stuff. Most of the folks in town agreed to sell, but seven families, owning 15 homes, refused. They like their crumbly Victorians. So when the state tried to condemn their property, they sought injunctions."

I think it's interesting that 7 "families" own FIFTEEN houses [whoops, of course I mean homes] -- I'm thinking, some of these "families" are actually people who own rental property and are really just looking for more money.

mmmmm piecemeal

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Why don't you find this argument for compensation appropriate when it comes to free trade? Free trade with a country that has a lower standard of living bids down the price of labor and depresses wage. Why don't you want full and fair compensation to the workers getting shafted?

Was this a joke? Is this sarcasm or are you serious?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You start with a baseline assumption that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with your own land. But that's never been the law. Paving over wetlands hurts other people, because of the particular value of wetlands for wildlife, etc. At common law, nuisance law limited how you could use your own land to harm others. In this century, as the common law couldn't keep pace with technological and scientific advancement (e.g., we trust EPA scientists to assess the harm of certain chemicals more than we would trust elected state court judges), these lines have been drawn by government agencies instead of courts, but the principle is the same.

And the whole "puddle forming" hypothetical is a little bit out there. You've been hanging with the Republican doctors a little too much.

The point I am trying to make, is that if the government puts a restriction on your land for the public benefit that impedes your ability to obtain income on your land or reduces the value you should be compensated.