Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 299

What's the argument for "Unions are antithesis of free market"? People can't organize themselves and collectively bargain in a free market?

On August 04 2021 06:43 blackjacki2 wrote: What's the argument for "Unions are antithesis of free market"? People can't organize themselves and collectively bargain in a free market?

Oh absolutely they can and should, however unions get legal protections that are anti-free market, for example you can't fire workers on a strike.

Also it forces workers to pay the union fee, it creates a non-competence hierarchy of union leaders who control the woh gets jobs, shifts etc and then lobby the state using their workers votes as bargaining chip and its a nest for corruption, two of the most powerful and corrupt assholes in México are union leaders, the teacher union leader who was put in jail for corruption by the last president has no been freed by the new president (Obrador) because she delivered the teacher's vote from jail, so yeah fuck unions.

Stagnated wages and income inequality are a huge problem. I would say they are a much bigger problem that those gripes you listed about unions. I would also say unions are much more of a free market solution to improve compensation for workers than say raising the federally mandated minimum wage.

On August 04 2021 21:10 blackjacki2 wrote: Stagnated wages and income inequality are a huge problem. I would say they are a much bigger problem that those gripes you listed about unions. I would also say unions are much more of a free market solution to improve compensation for workers than say raising the federally mandated minimum wage.

Wage stagnation isn't caused by employers not wanting to pay more, the value of labor is set by offer/demand, the healthier the economy the more jobs (more demand for labor = higher wage), if theres oversupply of labor the wages go down and also you have the compounding problem that wages have to keep up with inflation to remain stable.


So yeah federal wage mandates are more centralized and obv worse, but both are still awful patches that don't solve shit, if you need to really solve stagnant wages you improve the economy to create more jobs and increase production to lower the costs of products.

Automation is not a problem for job losses, the unemployment rate is a policy choice. There's basically no evidence for the kind of thing that Andrew Yang is talking about. There are plenty of jobs out there that need doing and it's easy to see that automation improves society as long as the benefits are distributed fairly. There's some pretty good critique out there of this whole automation hypothesis that you can find on the internet-economists have criticized it a lot.

Decline of union membership is one of the major factors behind wage stagnation since raegan/thatcher broke them, I think there is quite a bit of research on this too. This is about power-their main function is make the company less powerful so they can't exploit people for lower wages. And note that during the periods of lowest unemployment under neoliberalism, there wasn't any large inflation rate. (dot-com boom). The NAIRU is not really known, (imo it's a bad theory). Oone of the main aspects of globalization are EPZ's (export processing zones), where third world countries set up special zones where workers essentially have no rights, meaning no unions or basically anything that will help workers get paid more.

Yeah I don't think China is rivaling America in power anytime soon. Half of the country is severely underdeveloped. If you compared the rust belt in America with rural China, it's not even close which one is worse off. For example there is a massive aid's epidemic in China that was caused by the government encouraging poor people to sell their blood. China could be a lot better off if it didn't have such an awful government. Even though China has exerted soft power over a lot of Africa-those supply chains still end up benefitting companies like Apple more than the production companies in China.

On August 05 2021 13:36 Stroggoz wrote: Automation is not a problem for job losses, the unemployment rate is a policy choice. There's basically no evidence for the kind of thing that Andrew Yang is talking about. There are plenty of jobs out there that need doing and it's easy to see that automation improves society as long as the benefits are distributed fairly. There's some pretty good critique out there of this whole automation hypothesis that you can find on the internet-economists have criticized it a lot. Decline of union membership is one of the major factors behind wage stagnation since raegan/thatcher broke them, I think there is quite a bit of research on this too. This is about power-their main function is make the company less powerful so they can't exploit people for lower wages. And note that during the periods of lowest unemployment under neoliberalism, there wasn't any large inflation rate. (dot-com boom). The NAIRU is not really known, (imo it's a bad theory). Oone of the main aspects of globalization are EPZ's (export processing zones), where third world countries set up special zones where workers essentially have no rights, meaning no unions or basically anything that will help workers get paid more. Yeah I don't think China is rivaling America in power anytime soon. Half of the country is severely underdeveloped. If you compared the rust belt in America with rural China, it's not even close which one is worse off. For example there is a massive aid's epidemic in China that was caused by the government encouraging poor people to sell their blood. China could be a lot better off if it didn't have such an awful government. Even though China has exerted soft power over a lot of Africa-those supply chains still end up benefitting companies like Apple more than the production companies in China.

Agreed on automation although its on a longer timescale since there are painful transition periods as jobs types cease to exist and new ones open, like soon we will have on with drivers.

Obviously federal mandates and unions artifially raise wages, but thats overall detrimental to the economy and comes back as natural under-demand and wage stagnation, typical economic vicious circle caused by narrosighted bureaocrats.

Also agreed on China, the US problems are in full display for the world to see, China's problems are hidden and its far worse than most people think it is.

Regarding globalization i'm also not a fan, scale is a big issue that what brings the ugliest part of capitalism like total atomization, but I dont know why the Amerian economy functions like that, businesses either turn imo massive corps or go belly up, I mean some businesses requiere critical mass like oil companies or car companies for example, but fucking restaurants? the US is cluttered with awful franchises that sell pink slime in different forms ffs, support local family places ffs.

On August 02 2021 04:32 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On August 01 2021 23:14 Stroggoz wrote:   On August 01 2021 18:25 RiKD wrote: There will always be loopholes and people that game the system. Society has already decided that they don't care about Elon Musk evading taxes and not contributing anything to public services. That is why he does it so freely. It's morally bad but what is the alternative? How much does he give each year and to where? Remember most of the world is convinced that these bad ass CEOs know more than anyone in any field. On the flip side capitalism gives people what they need or think they need or didn't even know they needed but they need now. Is this a good thing? I know I always seem to make these posts about me but sometimes it is really fucking hard to see alternatives to capitalism. Why are you asking what the alternative is, there have been plenty of alternative suggestions which you've seen. One is economic democracy. There could be lots of basic changes like instead of having tax evasion you could have rich people paying taxes, and then we could restructure the tax system in accordance with democratic will from there. Capitalism doesn't give people what they want, I and pretty much everyone else want an eco-system. Polls indicate that people do want something that's quite a bit different to what we have now so I don't think most of the world agrees-and if they did I don't think there would have been so much consistent resistance to capitalism over the world for the past 250 years. I also tend to agree with Nietzsche that there is a will to power, a will to life that includes exploitation. I like to think that I do not exploit people as much as I use to which is definitely true but it is also true that exploitation is part of being not only human but any living creature. I mean I go 4 buttons un-done on the El Chapo shirt and the woman can not resist. I said I don't wear buttons but the El Chapo shirt is an exception. Has to be. There are many examples that my life is really full of many tiny and large exploitations in order to survive and thrive. What do you think of the relationship between me struggling more than I have ever struggled in my life and not wanting to exploit people or engage with capitalism?

I don't know what Nietzsche meant by will to power, but it seems pretty strange to think everyone has some drive to dominate other people since almost everyone doesn't express this view and doesn't act like they have this view, I mean what evidence is there to believe this? There was a very influential economist James Buchanan who had a view that all human beings want to do is make everyone else their slave. I don't think any of my friends are secretly harboring this impulse because it's socially unacceptable, and I don't see it as being some subconscious/unconscious desire. If that's the hypothesis then it's highly speculative.

On August 06 2021 17:37 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2021 04:32 RiKD wrote:   On August 01 2021 23:14 Stroggoz wrote:   On August 01 2021 18:25 RiKD wrote: There will always be loopholes and people that game the system. Society has already decided that they don't care about Elon Musk evading taxes and not contributing anything to public services. That is why he does it so freely. It's morally bad but what is the alternative? How much does he give each year and to where? Remember most of the world is convinced that these bad ass CEOs know more than anyone in any field. On the flip side capitalism gives people what they need or think they need or didn't even know they needed but they need now. Is this a good thing? I know I always seem to make these posts about me but sometimes it is really fucking hard to see alternatives to capitalism. Why are you asking what the alternative is, there have been plenty of alternative suggestions which you've seen. One is economic democracy. There could be lots of basic changes like instead of having tax evasion you could have rich people paying taxes, and then we could restructure the tax system in accordance with democratic will from there. Capitalism doesn't give people what they want, I and pretty much everyone else want an eco-system. Polls indicate that people do want something that's quite a bit different to what we have now so I don't think most of the world agrees-and if they did I don't think there would have been so much consistent resistance to capitalism over the world for the past 250 years. I also tend to agree with Nietzsche that there is a will to power, a will to life that includes exploitation. I like to think that I do not exploit people as much as I use to which is definitely true but it is also true that exploitation is part of being not only human but any living creature. I mean I go 4 buttons un-done on the El Chapo shirt and the woman can not resist. I said I don't wear buttons but the El Chapo shirt is an exception. Has to be. There are many examples that my life is really full of many tiny and large exploitations in order to survive and thrive. What do you think of the relationship between me struggling more than I have ever struggled in my life and not wanting to exploit people or engage with capitalism? I don't know what Nietzsche meant by will to power, but it seems pretty strange to think everyone has some drive to dominate other people since almost everyone doesn't express this view and doesn't act like they have this view, I mean what evidence is there to believe this? There was a very influential economist James Buchanan who had a view that all human beings want to do is make everyone else their slave. I don't think any of my friends are secretly harboring this impulse because it's socially unacceptable, and I don't see it as being some subconscious/unconscious desire. If that's the hypothesis then it's highly speculative.

Dominate is different than exploit. Exploit is different than manipulate but closer. There are very few people who will express these things in public. The fact that The Prince by Machiavelli and that 48 Laws of Power book were best-sellers is evidence. Buchanan's views are far, far stronger than Nietzsche's. I was a highly exploitive person when I was playing sports, playing egames, playing poker, and in sales and it carried over into my personal life. I brought up the El Chapo shirt as a joke but also as an example. If I shower, brush my teeth, put on the El Chapo shirt, unbutton 4 buttons, get my hair looking extra nice for a date these are all tiny exploitations in regard to will to power/life. The El Chapo shirt with 4 buttons undone is kind of a meme but it actually works living on the beach.

"Money, power, beauty, fame
Choose your weapon to beat the game"

New pop song that just was leaked and will probably be a smash

This shit is everywhere in pop culture especially in drug dealing culture which is pop culture and hip hop culture.

You used to and probably still do exploit people everyday in poker. Does this mean you steal at Walmart because they don't charge people for less than $20 in theft? Probably not.

Does this mean you are actively trying to manipulate all of your friends? Probably not.

Will to Power is not a very understood thing and it came up in some reading recently and I thought it may apply or may not apply. Some people translate it as will to art, will to doing better, will to whatever. From my readings I am not sure I mind this exploitation hypothesis. Will to Power has a long history of mis-translations and mis-interpretations especially in regard to the Nazi party. Nietzsche claimed no state and was vehemently against nationalism. My hypothesis right now would be that there is a factor of exploitation in Will to Power but there is also a factor of will to overcome oneself and will to the good life. And, the good life doesn't mean drinking champagne and eating caviar at other peoples' expense it is more of a Greek discussion on what a good life entails that is ongoing today and into the future and also obviously depends on the individual. There are some things in life that are 0 sum games and exploitation will occur.

The fact that people exploit one another doesn't in any way prove they have a will to exploit-I play poker because i like strategy games, not because i like exploiting people. I'm guessing that's true for most poker players given the common background from broodwar and other strategy games. Might want to look into the fact that harry potter was a best seller as well and that proves everyone has some internal drive to become a wizard.

exploitation is a result from will to power/life.

"exploitation is a by product of will to power/life" is probably an un-falsifiable claim and i see what you are saying ( i think):

exploitation is a by product of will to power/life = will to power/life is a byproduct of exploitation (?)

I don't think these 2 equal

will to power could mean me just wanting to overcome myself and live a relatively good life. i don't actually think i need a lot of exploitation to do this.

i could hit the books at this point but you don't even like continental philosophy so i will lay off that.

i will say anecdotally that there are a lot of people who enjoy exploitation while they bob their heads to Can't Knock The Hustle by Jay Z or probably literally millions of other songs

i used to love exploiting people in poker but when I cut something in half with friends I let them choose.

i don't even like harry potter books and i have an internal drive to be a wizard

btw, i find it hard to believe you don't like exploiting people. if you find some spot that a certain player leans too far in one direction and you bluff shove for like not even double the bet and they fold... i mean that used to give me boners. in some cases that bet may have been their last money on the planet but poker players don't think like that.

sc:bw is the same. these games give us free reign to exploit people and we love it.

if you have never enjoyed exploiting someone or never felt gross about exploiting someone or somewhere in between congratulations you may just be neo- bad ass human and Nietzsche's writings in 18** may not apply to you. You Übermensch you.

you can fool yourself that poker is simply a game and that you don't enjoy exploiting people but you still are exploiting people. in order to be a good poker player (will to power) exploitation is a by product.

being a "player of games" and a maths student + researcher insulates you from this idea

at the end of the day neoliberalism = exploitation and you should know this

does power = evil?

how is playing poker exploiting people?

The whole point of poker is to exploit people.

Which is worse?

Leftists and their utopia or Christians and their afterlives?

I think you have a misunderstanding of what exploitation of people is. While you do want to gain advantage against your opponents in poker that doesn't mean it's a game of exploitation. Think people heavily lean towards that idea because poker, unlike any other competition directly ties the money to the outcome skipping the 'additional' step there usually is in any competition. By your definition any sort of competition is exploiting people. The reality is that we only carry the weight of our own decisions just as in any other competition.


You seem to be burdening yourself with the responsibilities of other people, I personally wouldn't advise that

Sports/games are exploitation at typically zero-sum games.

If Michael Jordan wins the game he gets the money/fame/status that the losers don't get.

Michael Jordan is constantly exploiting people.

(Not to mention MJ is at least part owner in the Jordan Brand, which is constantly exploiting labor and consumers under neoliberalism capitalism)

None, of you have ever played a fish (or pro worse than you) in hu poker and you are destroying them. Exploiting them constantly. What do you think EV is anyway? Finally, they buy-in for some weird amount less than the buy-in, then they lose that and start freaking out in chat cursing you every which way then you either never see them again or they are back one day and the likelihood is that keeps happening until they either stop depositing or play lower stakes or get better which never happens.

So you're saying Michael Jordan is less oppressive because basketball has no rake

No, Michael Jordan is not responsible for how people perceive him or for the feelings they get associating themselves with his team. He's responsible for how good he plays a sports game and whether he gives his best for his team every single time. There is a reason Michael Jordan is Michael Jordan, he wasn't born into it, he didn't magically pop into the world with his abilities. It was all due to his hard work, the decisions he made, and a good dose of luck for that to have happened at the time it did.

As I said, each individual should only feel responsible for their own decisions and state of mind.

You can read about 'the father of psychology' in the US - William James. He lived in the late 19th century, born into an extremely wealthy family, with a ton of big expectations of him. His life was a total mess and super shitty. Had a ton of physical problems, had an opposite view of the world compared to his family (e.g. believed in peace while his father was proud of his other sons that died fighting in wars), wanted to take a different path than that predetermined for him. Imagine having 21st century ideology being born into a conservative, rich 19th century, while having quite a few medical issues - his life was awful.

He was almost left for dead during an expedition in South America after catching smallpox and the expedition leaving him behind. So he ended up making the decision that he gives himself a period of one year to take responsibility for every single thing that happens to him and if nothing changes he'd take his own life. Ended up being the most influential psychologist in the US for decades.

You can vent and whine about shit, you can blame shit on others, but at the end of the day, it's up to you how you perceive and deal with a situation that happens to you. You do NOT bear any responsibility for anyone else in this world apart from potentially your child for a given period of time.