public unions versus the public

[caroljane]

Tony,

The rich/individualist part had nothing to do with it. Someone said \I was prejudiced against those two groups of people, which I am not, and prejudiced against handguns, which I am. The two threads of argument overlapped.

Since the morality of the killer and the killed so often, to me, is discernibly often equal, and the circumstances of killing so often obscure, I guess I am stuck with my muddy sentimentality.

[anthony]

Tony,

The rich/individualist part had nothing to do with it. Someone said \I was prejudiced against those two groups of people, which I am not, and prejudiced against handguns, which I am. The two threads of argument overlapped.

Since the morality of the killer and the killed so often, to me, is discernibly often equal, and the circumstances of killing so often obscure, I guess I am stuck with my muddy sentimentality.

Carol,

We aren't agreeing on morality.

Additionally, you regularly state your blanket opposition to hand guns, and death by ~ whatever ~ the circumstances.

If the morality is muddy, as between two, known, violent gangsters - the one, defending himself - then neither deserves moral support. (Though legally, the self-defender should be exonerated.)

But it's not always so ambivalent.

In my morality, the person who values his own life - and by extension, all life - enough to protect it to the utmost - against an aggressor who by definition, has little value for his own life, and by...etc,

- is of far higher morality: rationally selfish morality.

[Frediano]

" I like people who live their beliefs however much I think their beliefs are wrong."

You think my beliefs are wrong? Which beliefs?

I believe peers living in freedom should be limited to rules of free association. (That rules out things like rape and murder and other forms of forced association.)

I believe the justifications for forced association are nearly non-existent; not even my really good ideas are a justification for forced association with them.

I believe the formation of unions is an example of free association...when they are limited to free association.

I'm an advocate of political free association. A co-op or commune or non-profit or a union is an example of free association. So is Mobil/Exxon. So are the two corporations, one domestic and one foreign, that were' me' for most of my working career. The only way to screw that up is to inject the guns of government(and for example, direct special favors at Mobil/Exxon.)

I've never said unions weren't for anybody; I've said they weren't for me. More power to them.

So, where do I go astray, eschewing political forced association? You know; Totalitarianism. One size fits all. Monopolists with guns. All our eggs in one great big basket.

Hell, I used to belong to a union, when I was going to college. Summer jobs. Steel fab plant, manufacturing plant. It's where I learned the exact meaning and precise definition of the phrase, "fu**ing the dog." Used in an answer to the question "Where's Frank?" ... "He's fu**ing the dog."

Oh.

Since then, no union has ever politely asked(or impolitely demanded)that I join their ranks. Nor have I asked. It has worked out fine for me... and the many enough just like me.

Here's a problem unions have. Maybe they don't realize it, maybe they do. You don't need to believe me, maybe I'm making all this up. Not my problem. Take it for what it is worth, the cost of my offering it, which is nothing.

What was the biggest capital drawing IPO in resent memory? The 800 lb gorilla of recent IPOs? "Facebook" Not anything like the folks like me living in the cracks and crevices of commerce, hidden in plains sight. Facebook! Drew a tsunami of capital thrown at it.

Facebook employs maybe ... 3400 people. At it's peak, Beth Steel employed 330,000 people. It would take a hundred 'Facebook' IPOs to equal one Bethlehem Steel. Don't hold your breath. which means, don't wait for that to happen.

And therein is the problem faced by unions. Unions are waging a twentieth century battle.

This is not a plot by nefarious neocons or whatever. This is the endgame of dirt simple 2D geopolitical gradient in the world, and a confluence of multiple factors.

1] At the very moment that we've all but consumed dirt simple 2D surface based geopolitical gradient (the gradient of markets between civilization and frontier-- the 'new' world), our technological range -- the ability to project command, control, communication and commerce -- has more than overwhemed the surface of the globe. Not a plot; just reality.

2] Dirt simple geopolitical gradient was important for the following reason; it created, simply by existing, a gradient of economic opportunities. There were plenty of -different- economic opportunites, and that translated to a a gradient of jobs, jobs, jobs, as in, types of jobs. The needs at the 'frontier' were not the same as the needs at 'the capitol.' It has been 60 years -- 3 generations -- since America put the last star on its flag. he 'new world' is no more. The current 2D surface development wave -- in India and China -- is expanding at a rate far faster -- orders of magnitude faster -- than it did during the North America development wave, due precisely to that massive technological increase in CCC&C. This barely understand fact, a modern boundary condition, is variously called 'globalization' and/or the end of history as we knew it as a species expanding over a limited 2D surface domain as a modern, technological group of civilizations, plural with various levels of interaction and shared experience.

3] As the stress of this endgame grows, our ratcake politics have not helped one bit. The tribe has panicked, like sinking rats on a lifeboat, and that isn't working at all. The results are just pathetic, but predictable.

4] There are still plenty of frontiers and economic opportunities in modern economies; the problem, not just for classical unions but for many is that increasingly, these opportunities are in narrow intellectual fields, and the price of admission is ever more specialized education. There were always purely intellectual frontiers, but in a world with 2D dirt simple geopolitical gradient remaining, there were also non-intellectual frontiers and opportunities. This concentration of economic opportunities into purely intellectual frontiers has happened too rapidly for mankind as a whole to adapt to, and the current stress is the grinding of the gears as we struggle to either sink or swim in the reality of the new economies.

5] The problem with much of the new intellectual frontiers is that, unlike the equivalent intellectual frontiers in the old 2D surface growth world, not enough of them result in -broad- economic opportunity elsewhere. (As in, Facebook employing 3400 people...and of those 3400 jobs, how many are like the jobs once offered by a Beth Steel?...)

6] The challenge for modern economies is to restore gradient of economic opportunities in a world in which 2D dirt simple surface gradient is gone-- not just 'consumed,' but overwhelmed by out technological CCC&C range. But, none of our politics is directed at this(at least, not since JFK fifty years ago.)

7] 2D surface based growth had the following characteristic(for thousands of years until recently). As technological range grew linearly (the ability to project command, control, communication and conduct commerce), geo-political borders grew as range, and domain grew as range-squared, even if limited by geography and in fits or spurts. Borders were a cost, and domain was a resource. So there was always a geopolitical pressure for geopolitical entities/nations to grow, until pressure at mutual borders resulted in a kind of homeostasis. But even with this homeostasis, with the technologies of the time, there yet existing a gradient of opportunities to and from the borders, which were not like the 'capitol'. The border was where trade happened, where wars were fought. Modernlity and 20th century technological range rapidly changed that dynamic, creating a new 'globalized' world not seen before. A downside has been the destruction of economic gradients of broad opportunity in other than purely intellectual fields.

So what to do? The malthusians have one solution, which is, marshall all of mankind as if they wer bees in a bee colony, and target a new 'stasis.'

But stasis in the universe, as it is, is death. It is a dangerous experiment. Mankind has never known it,,,except in the dark ages(the last time we paused at a gulf and stared out at a seemingly impenetrable ocean.)

An alternative is JFK's vision. The transition from 2D to a 3D growth paradigm, one in which domain grew as range cubed, and border area as range squared. Not only restoration of gradient, but of an exponentially more potent growth model. 50 years after his vision, we are -still- living off the remnants of that attempt to put 12 sets of footprints on the Moon. What little has driven our economies since then is directly attributable to that intense, focused effort to -reach-. The gradient of opportunities went all the way from the Moon back to Huntsville, AL, Los ANgeles, CA, Bethpage, NY, and beyond. It extended into our schools and universities and both drive and inspired a generation, until Nixon, in a fit of petty jealousy over JFK's legacy, put that vision on ice.

The human urge to restore gradient is still alive in efforts like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, not because of our politicos and their spending of 3800B/yr of the nations lifeblood, but in spite of it.

I could be wrong about all of that. Maybe what we really need is Totalitarianism, a committee, and a Five Year Plan.

[caroljane]

Tony,

The rich/individualist part had nothing to do with it. Someone said \I was prejudiced against those two groups of people, which I am not, and prejudiced against handguns, which I am. The two threads of argument overlapped.

Since the morality of the killer and the killed so often, to me, is discernibly often equal, and the circumstances of killing so often obscure, I guess I am stuck with my muddy sentimentality.

Carol,

We aren't agreeing on morality.

Additionally, you regularly state your blanket opposition to hand guns, and death by ~ whatever ~ the circumstances.No

If the morality is muddy, as between two, known, violent gangsters - the one, defending himself - then neither deserves moral support. (Though legally, the self-defender should be exonerated.)

But it's not always so ambivalent.

In my morality, the person who values his own life - and by extension, all life - enough to protect it to the utmost - against an aggressor who by definition, has little value for his own life, and by...etc,

- is of far higher morality: rationally selfish morality.

No, we cannot agree on morality, as we cannot agree that we hold the same basic premises and my A is not your A. I do know from my own premises, that you are a highly moral man. You strive never to be smaller than your philosophy. I think you fail at that much less than you think you do. I know that I am always smaller than mine. I feel privileged to know you.

[caroljane]

Frediano,

Your analysis here is highly informed, and persuasive. I have no economics background or knowledge to challenge it in any way. I think you may well be right'

As to unions, do not faint but I completely agree that if they cannot provide services to groups of workers in the future, they will naturally wither away.

But being me, I think that unintended consequences are often more impactful than reliably-predicted outcomes, since economies like everything can only predicted based on past variables/ And as to beliefs I think that humanity and society, which may or may not exist, are as a whole greater than the sum of their parts, and difficult to predict only based on those parts.

[anthony]

Tony,

The rich/individualist part had nothing to do with it. Someone said \I was prejudiced against those two groups of people, which I am not, and prejudiced against handguns, which I am. The two threads of argument overlapped.

Since the morality of the killer and the killed so often, to me, is discernibly often equal, and the circumstances of killing so often obscure, I guess I am stuck with my muddy sentimentality.

Carol,

We aren't agreeing on morality.

Additionally, you regularly state your blanket opposition to hand guns, and death by ~ whatever ~ the circumstances.No

If the morality is muddy, as between two, known, violent gangsters - the one, defending himself - then neither deserves moral support. (Though legally, the self-defender should be exonerated.)

But it's not always so ambivalent.

In my morality, the person who values his own life - and by extension, all life - enough to protect it to the utmost - against an aggressor who by definition, has little value for his own life, and by...etc,

- is of far higher morality: rationally selfish morality.

No, we cannot agree on morality, as we cannot agree that we hold the same basic premises and my A is not your A. I do know from my own premises, that you are a highly moral man. You strive never to be smaller than your philosophy. I think you fail at that much less than you think you do. I know that I am always smaller than mine. I feel privileged to know you.

This is an infant morality, Carol, but it will catch on. Really, because it's derived from existence -

not from our hopes, feelings and wishes. So - it begins with the individual, and ends with him, but leaves plenty in the middle there for his human on human enjoyment. Who can trust a morality that starts with the 'other' and ends with the 'other'? Not I. How can it be attempted, when one's own consciousness is paramount? How can it be sustained, except by a measure of constant self-renunciation? and if one is taking pride in that - well, then there's the contradiction.

Egoism, by way of selflessness...

When all the while there is a direct (and rational) route to pride and fulfilment.

But integrity, whether one is right or wrong: that may come by various routes, and you're one of the good'uns.

(Don't mean we won't do battle some more)..

[Frediano]

" since economies like everything can only predicted based on past variables"

I have to disagree with you on that; it is much worse than that. Modern state of the art economic theory can't even tell us what is happening or what already happened, much less, what is going to happen.

There are few, if any 'economists.' There are mostly only conservative economists or liberal economists. Economic theory is political argument by other means. (As someone else pointed out elsewhere, there are subsets of economists who focus purely on data analysis and theoretical work about what should show up in data as the consequences of other economic theories, but I suspect even that field is subject to political gerrymandering. The given in all of this -- commerce, politics, economics -- is that we are all naked sweaty apes, and on average, we are average.)

Where is there any evidence that economics has been able to predict anything at all about economies based on past variables? Never mind what is going to happen-- modern state of the art economics can't even explain what has long already happened.

Said another way; I assume present and past POTUS and world political leaders have had access to state of the art economists, the very best of the Nobel Prize Winning best; is there any evidence -- even the slightest -- that present and past POTUS and world political leaders have been able to "run the[sic] economy?'

If so, then ... is this where they wanted to 'run' it?

"unintended consequences" is a favorite topic; it is related in some way to Wolfram's "New Kind Of Science(NKS)", which can be crudely boiled down to "complexity can spontaneously erupt from simple rules." An example is, DNA. GATC + a set of simple rules for what are allowed combinations. Shake and bake, and before you know it, the borrowed heavy elements of stars long dead becomes self aware. There is a creationist argument that this cannot possibly be, that such a precise order cannot from randomness, but their argument is flawed in the sense that there wasn't just 'randomness' at work; there was another simple rule of the Universe at work, which is gravity; 'random' species in solution(muddy water), under the influence of gravity, will not settle out 'randomly.' It will settle out by density. The resulting media creates not just a gradient of species, but a gradient of gradients. Imagine the stagnant pools around thousands of miles of ocean and river and lake shorelines, running ordered lab experiments for eaons. Is it unreasonable to assume that somewhere in that ordered-- not random -- matrix of gradients there would erupt fom simple rules the complexity of the building blocks of life? And from those building blocks, more complexity? Until, lather, rinse, repeat, here we are, self aware borrowed stardust.

NKS doesn't 'prove' this. But it does suggest that it is a possibility. Unintended consequences from simple rules includes unanticipated complexity. Not all unintended consequences are bad.

[Frediano]

Let me give you an example from 'economics:' the 'definition' of GDP

GDP = G + C + Inv + (Ex-Im)

where

GDP = Gross Domestic Product

G = total goverment spending

C = total private consumptive spending

Inv = total private investment

Ex = total exports

Im = total imports

It is widely touted as a measure of economic 'growth' of something called 'the economy.'

Look at that, it looks just like mathematics; inexorable. Undeniable. But wait...it is packed with political assumptions. here are unseen factors which must all be assumed to be +1.0, as in

GDP = 1.0* G + 1.0 * C + 1.0 *Inv + (1.0 * Ex - 1.0 * Im)

That is math, too. If we assume all those factors are 1.0, then that 'equation is not written that way. But... what does it mean when we assume all those factors are = + 1.0?

It is a political assertion. It is the assertion that, when defining a measure of economic 'growth', $1 of Government spending is exactly equivalent in every way to $1 of private spending.

Which is to say, $1 of public debt fueled public spending is equivalent in every way to $1 of private debt fueled private spending.

And yet, if you think about this even a little bit, it is clearly not the case, especially given all the creative ways the governments can take on debt.

If Congress were to sign a piece of paper. granting itself the right to tell a secretary to run a laser printer, print out another piece of paper, then walk over to the fed window and accept $1T in freshly printed cash in exchange for that paper(a promise to tax/borrow more in the future), and then throw that money at 'the economy' (really, the economies, by way of selective and crony based government 'spending')...would we say that 'the economy' has 'grown' by $1T?

And what of the implied equivalence, not only between $1 of government spending and $1 of private spending, but of public debt and private debt? What is the difference between public debt and private debt? That is easy to understand.

My available credit and your available credit and the CEO of FedEx's available credit on behalf of FedEx is all finite. When we take on debt, we consume available credit. Not only that, we create incentive -- in ourselves -- to freshly go out into the future and create new value, in order to paydown that debt, lower interest payments, and restore our available credit. It is thus seen as a kind of investment in the future economies. It projects economic activity -- human creative effort -- forward into the future.

Compare with public debt. When public debt is taken on(how? By painlessly signing pen to paper and extending the debt ceiling on our unlimited credit), not a single human being anywhere in the world wakes up the next morning with any incentive to do anything. The debt just grows, unbounded. It creates no incentives at all in future economies. It is thus seen as a pure de-investment in future economies (because all that remains is the future obligation for our children to be taxed to pay the increased debt service.)

And so, a $ of G is not equivalent to a $ of C, and that 'equation' defining GDP is really a political assertion, it is not 'math' even though it looks just like math.

In fact, in terms of defining a healthy, growing 'the economy', not only is the implied 1.0 suspect, but so is the implied '+' in front of it...

Think about this the next time we hear some cheerleader on the radio announcing "1.1% growth in 'the economy'" ...what the Hell does it mean?

[caroljane]

Very interesting information. The UIs certainly are not all bad. Anyone whoever had a child, planned and prepared for and scheduled more efficiently than D-Day, has found this out!

[Mikee]

"The UIs certainly are not all bad."

Sure. Look at all the government jobs those new regulations create. Look at all the unemployed by the minimum wage youth freed up for community action groups. Still got poverty? discrimination? unemployment? polarization by class and race? privilege seeking and rent collecting? Don't call it corruption, it's getting people elected! That's what matters.

[caroljane]

MIkee, that was my typ0! I meant the UICs Unintended Consequences as per Fred's post! Nothing to do with UI, whatever that is.

[Mikee]

That's what I thought you meant (I'm used to your typo's) and that's what I was talking about. Unintended consequences, good or bad, voluntarily made by individuals concerning their personal business are one thing. Unintended consequences of actions forced on an unwilling population are never good. Force is toxic, imposed by regulation destroys civil society and achieves the opposite of it's supposed intention. And it destroys the rule of law by creating contempt for it.

[caroljane]

OK. but the most impactful unintended consequeces I was thinking of, come more from unpredictable outcomes of individual actions, not government mandates imposed en masse. And even those have UICs that can be good. .The tea taxes provoked an outcome unpredictable to the imposers, but worked out pretty well for the imposed upon, n'est-ce pas?

[Mikee]

Sort of like if a dirt bag tries to mug someone and gets shot for his troubles? Good for society, one less dirt bag, n'est-ce pas?

"I was thinking of, come more from unpredictable outcomes of individual actions, not government mandates imposed en masse."

I definitely need examples to know what you're talking about.

[caroljane]

You go first. I am sure that during the War of Independence which I referenced, many dirt bags got shot. Society was well rid of the Tory scum.

I gave you my example already, purely individual one, of of having a child bringing untintended consequences some of which are good. A concretization of a concept Fred had illustrated. That's all.

[Mikee]

Re: "I'm beginning to understand you" [from another thread]. Okay, I understand what you mean by "most impactful"

Do you understand what I meant about the difference between voluntary and forced actions? And the impact of large scale force to civil society and the rule of law?

[caroljane]

I don't think I do understand what you mean. The line of voluntary and consensual is very fine in many aspects of life. And I do not believe that individual lives, however influenced in their choices, are ruled primarily by large scale forces. They are forced into desperate choices certainly, but they are ruled by their own individual values.

[Mikee]

I don't think I do understand what you mean. The line of voluntary and consensual is very fine in many aspects of life. And I do not believe that individual lives, however influenced in their choices, are ruled primarily by large scale forces. They are forced into desperate choices certainly, but they are ruled by their own individual values.

I suppose cattle being herded between two narrowing fences up a ramp into a cattle car could be said to be acting voluntarily (each step is a choice, moving forward is the easiest choice). These values that rule individual choices, how are they shaped? What individual values make a civil society?

[Selene]

These values that rule individual choices, how are they shaped? What individual values make a civil society?

Now there are some excellent questions.

Work with us folks from the last century...define "civil society," please.

A...

[caroljane]

And here we move from the passive voice to the active Who shapes situations, who shapes society? I say that individuals do, in collusion or in conspiracy or in isolation from each other, , in large likeminded groups or in small commando units. It is always about you and me. We choose what to believe and what to do.

[Mikee]

Civil society as Ayn Rand perceived human nature: traders, exchanging value for value, no force or fraud. Free markets (the Austrian sense) and rule of law.

[caroljane]

Ayn Rand, I think, perceived the population of a civil society as very small, maybe somewhat the population of Aristotle's Athens, or St Petersburg's middle class, or Galt's Gulch The millions of individuals outside were to her , mindless barbarians who wished to destroy civil society for the sake of destruction, because of their animal envy. She has acknowledged many times, that any individual amongst those millions if showing merit should be raised to admission to civil society, and that every individual has the potential to become civilized and intelligent. But I don't think she was optimistic that most of them would.

[Selene]

And here we move from the passive voice to the active Who shapes situations, who shapes society? I say that individuals do, in collusion or in conspiracy or in isolation from each other, , in large likeminded groups or in small commando units. It is always about you and me. We choose what to believe and what to do.

Yes.

[Mikee]

You are wrong about Ayn Rand's view of the ordinary man. No one who believes in free markets disbelieves in the intelligence of men or their ability on the whole to make good choices. Ayn Rand believed in liberty for everyone. She did not believe they were cattle to be "husbanded" by their "betters". She said some bitter things when it became clear her message was not having the desired effect, that the United States was still moving in the direction of Statism.

[Selene]

Guys, this is not an argument that either side can "prove."

I want you both to submit essays supporting your positions.

Maximum word count is 1,000 "spaces.*"

A...

* pursuant to subsection ©(1)(s). That is all,