Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you want a good metric for third world countries that have successfully developed, look to unionization. It's union wages that create the middle class that fuels demand and creates a real economy, instead of a pure export-oriented economy.

So do you mind when capitalists influence the laws?

I don't mind unions forming. I don't mind them demanding higher wages. It is just when they start influecing laws (that would be after the get the right to unionize) they cause trouble becuase the only thing left to help protect their jobs is protectionism.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't mind unions forming. I don't mind them demanding higher wages. It is just when they start influecing laws (that would be after the get the right to unionize) they cause trouble becuase the only thing left to help protect their jobs is protectionism.

Um, but you are OK with corporations influencing laws? And unions can influence all kinds of non-protectionist laws. Like those on benefits, for example. Or taxes. Or OSHA-type stuff. Just off the top of my head.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
This zeal for burning in-house counsel at the stake without worrying about what might've actually happened in the interactions between the counsel and their client is why I suggested (last time you brought up this topic) that you repeat this in your next newsletter to your clients, who I'm sure would read this with interest. How'd that go, by the way?

you must have Sidd on ignore. If you had read his posts you'd know that my practice revolves around an area called "pawn shop litigation." Hardly any pawn shops have in-house guys, only the very biggest do and they generally go with the bigger firms anyway.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Dude, the function of a union is to protect jobs of its workers. What would you have them do? Take up expressive dance?

The point I was trying to make is that in general the policies the laws they push don't lead to increased growth. I think I showed that.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield 2. Businesses that falsify their numbers don't create growth. They create windfalls for their execs with options and shares. The regs and enforcement you're pissed about aren't a response to unbridled growth - they're a response (probably over-response) to fraud.

I am not pissed about all the regs and enforcement. I just don't like most of the ones the unoins push. Generally they just push for laws that restrict competition.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield 2.3. I view unions as the counterbalance to execs who have no interest but propping the numbers to get their bonus packages. Both are cabals of self serving, solely self interested whores. Together, they ass fuck companies exquisitely.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. It is just when the unions start lobbying for laws to protect their jobs. i.e. stopping free trade, telling Costco they can't sell food etc.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield 4. The present GOP is not supporting growth at all. What its doing is shoving short term gains into the pieholes of its biggest contributors. They're stripping the cash out businesses. But they don't care. When the whiplash tax increases of a liberal administration hit, they'll already be retired. Those of us in the middle will pay the tax bills when the unions and the lower middle class have their revenge. Same old story. The loathesome rich fight the loathesome poor, and the rest of us pay the tab for the damage.

By supporting free trade they are supporting growth.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Two things need to happen. First, the lawyers and doctors need to stop fighting. The insurers have tricked them into fighting one another when the real enemy is the insurers. If you take a look at the numbers, you'll see that rate increases are huge multiples of the costs incurred by insurers for malpractice claims. The insurers have never been able to show any congruity between their increases and the alleged costs justifying them. The lawyers and doctors should get together and fight the insurers. Once they get together, they can also do the second thing that needs to be done, which is weed lousy lawyers out of the system. Hacks who file junk claims cost good lawyers, doctors and insurers money. I don't just mean lousy PI lawyers, either. There are tons of commercial lawyers and litigants who litigate as a form of doing business. Those scumbags should be forced to pay sanctions for every frivolous action they file. We really ought to move toward a model where the overly litigious are sanctioned, and sanctioned stiffly, for filing junk suits if any kind.

But I guess that would wipe out a whole industry of people who pay tuitions and lease expensive cars.

The problem is that the lawyers benefit from this system and the doctors don't. Why should lawyers want to change the system when it is making them money. The trial lawyer groups are representing the "hacks" and making sure no positive changes are made.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't mind unions forming. I don't mind them demanding higher wages. It is just when they start influecing laws (that would be after the get the right to unionize) they cause trouble becuase the only thing left to help protect their jobs is protectionism.

Unions, like businesses, benefit from economic growth. Unions, like businesses, also benefit when Congress passes laws insulating them from the free market. Either you think that business is strangely altruistic, or you think that unions are strangely irrational, or you would rather side with rich people instead of the working man.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nobody wants to prosecute lawyers:

1. They're usually just yes men;

2. They create piles of CYA memos you have to get around (Belichick's TYCO case);

3. They're schooled in deflecting responsibility, so you can rarely, if ever, find them making a decision for anything;

4. You can't prosecute an entire department. You are on a budget.

And in this case, I think they had opinions from law and accounting firms.

[blueballs]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isn't anyone pissed that Enron's entire in-house legal isn't locked up for 5 years? Fat cats count on those guys to keep shit straight. It's the in house guys who should be locked up and throw away the key.

Well put Hankie pankie, but the thing is I'm not sure hard time would be much of a punishment. I'm guessing most of those in-house boys would enjoy the opportunity for some roughhouse prison style sex, since they are such whiny little beeyotches!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
or you would rather side with rich people instead of the working man.

Ty is Al Gore's sock?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, but you are OK with corporations influencing laws? And unions can influence all kinds of non-protectionist laws. Like those on benefits, for example. Or taxes. Or OSHA-type stuff. Just off the top of my head.

When specific corporations or industries try and influence legislation, they are worse than the Unions. Every businessman is for free trade except for his own industry. But in general, organizations that represent the entire business community, like the Chamber of Commerce are generally on the pro-growth side of issues. The time the Chamber can't be trusted is when it comes to worker safety or environmental law.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
When specific corporations or industries try and influence legislation, they are worse than the Unions. Every businessman is for free trade except for his own industry. But in general, organizations that represent the entire business community, like the Chamber of Commerce are generally on the pro-growth side of issues. The time the Chamber can't be trusted is when it comes to worker safety or environmental law.

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?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unions, like businesses, benefit from economic growth. Unions, like businesses, also benefit when Congress passes laws insulating them from the free market. Either you think that business is strangely altruistic, or you think that unions are strangely irrational, or you would rather side with rich people instead of the working man.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unions, like businesses, benefit from economic growth. Unions, like businesses, also benefit when Congress passes laws insulating them from the free market. Either you think that business is strangely altruistic, or you think that unions are strangely irrational, or you would rather side with rich people instead of the working man.

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't mind unions forming. I don't mind them demanding higher wages. It is just when they start influecing laws (that would be after the get the right to unionize) they cause trouble becuase the only thing left to help protect their jobs is protectionism.

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?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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?