The Current Crisis

Technically, how is a union any different from a monopoly that should be illegal under the anti-trust act? Their goal is to work together in order to restrict supply (of workers), thus keeping prices (wages) up. Those who are left without the union card are out of luck...

I oppose anti-trust legislation as well, and this is likely for another thread, but what moral justification do you have for violently forbidding workers from banding together?

If you would direct us to any quote that I made which supports "violently forbidding workers from banding together", then this question might warrant a response. As it stands, I do not have to justify anything like this, because I never made this claim.

1) Labor is just like any good that is bought and sold on the market, and unions act as monopolies by restricting the supply of labor in order to drive up the prices.

2) Unions do not help workers. They help union members. Workers who are excluded from union membership, for whatever reason, either become unemployed or end up taking lower wages than they should, due to the union monopoly.

Understanding these two things does not necessarily mean I am pro-union or anti-union. Workers do have a right to organize, but the leeway that is given to unions according to our laws is excessive; these organizations had (and still do have in some labor markets, though union activity has greatly declined) excessive power at their disposal with which they could manipulate the market.

If you want to talk about violence, don't try to say the big bad corporations were the only bad guys in violent strikes and protests. Workers killed people during these events as well, and were the main instigators of such catastrophes.

As an anarchist, I like to make the rhetorical point of bringing up government's primary method of social control: violence.

If a law is issued that stops workers from forming whatever type of peaceful negotiating organization, it will be enforced by violence.

And what is wrong with that? Other than the economic infeasibility of it?

The NLRB is one of the biggest ongoing crimes the government has instituted against the American worker. Unions have very, very little leeway.

I do not blame any individual for taking whatever peaceful steps he can to assure that he receives the greatest return from his labor. This is especially true in the current pro-big business skew that has been placed on the marketplace.

If we were going to have a battle for sympathy, big business, government, and their Pinkerton cronies certainly do not even have a place on the field.

That is not to say that unions have been squeaky clean, as they have instituted just as unfair practices against scabs.

Ultimately, yes. But there is no law that stops workers from organizing and peacefully negotiating. They have restrictions, but they are allowed to do as you say. I find it hard to take you seriously in your implication that violence should apparently be avoided at all costs, yet you say you are an anarchist. Such a system (lack of system) would certainly include more violence. But this is for another discussion...

Receiving a greater return for your labor though is remedied by marketing yourself as a good worker, seeking out the best place of employment, and furthering your skills/education (investing in your human capital). There is no longer a need for unions like there was during the early days of industrialized America, which is why their popularity has plummeted.

I don't have sympathy for any organized agenda. This includes big business, government, and unions. These groups by definition are not worthy of sympathy because they are created entities that serve the purpose of furthering the power of the agenda and they do not represent a person. Individuals join in with the hope that the agenda will serve their individual desires. I say get rid of more agendas and free up the market so that individuals can rely on themselves to meet out their desires. This also means fair legal responsibilities and taxation for corporations.

While unions are not actually beneficial to wages in the long run, it is still very silly to say that all one needs is to market oneself as a good worker. The history of mercantilism and industrialism, the growth of capitalism itself, has been one of subjugation of the worker.

The negotiation powers of the union still provide benefit and insure that an elite class that has never had much reason to respect workers will do so.

I'd like to bring up inflation again, which is my greatest immediate concern. Does anyone find it strange that the actual supply of money has expanded expontentially in recent weeks and interest rates are about to drop below 1%, yet the government has not reported any significant inflation? Am I insane or are they lying or miscalculating?

Let's get a couple of things straight:

1) Labor is just like any good that is bought and sold on the market, and unions act as monopolies by restricting the supply of labor in order to drive up the prices.

I'd like to bring up inflation again, which is my greatest immediate concern. Does anyone find it strange that the actual supply of money has expanded expontentially in recent weeks and interest rates are about to drop below 1%, yet the government has not reported any significant inflation? Am I insane or are they lying or miscalculating?

I'd like to bring up inflation again, which is my greatest immediate concern. Does anyone find it strange that the actual supply of money has expanded expontentially in recent weeks and interest rates are about to drop below 1%, yet the government has not reported any significant inflation? Am I insane or are they lying or miscalculating?

Awesome. So we agree that modern economics is the science of greed. What a terrible human endeavor.

Necessary Actions- The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation, the following:

(1) The Secretary shall have direct hiring authority with respect to the appointment of employees to administer this Act.
(2) Entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Federal Government, and such institutions shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Federal Government as may be required.
(4) In order to provide the Secretary with the flexibility to manage troubled assets in a manner designed to minimize cost to the taxpayers, establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase, hold, and sell troubled assets and issue obligations.
(5) Issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities or purposes of this Act.

(a) Standards Required- The Secretary shall issue regulations or guidelines necessary to address and manage or to prohibit conflicts of interest that may arise in connection with the administration and execution of the authorities provided under this Act, including...

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

I don't think the interest rates of t-bills are really going to tell you much. US govt.-issued bonds are still one of the safest investments you can hold. I also don't think that this current problem is really going to be a huge problem in the long run, and as I have said in other posts, it has been hyped up in the media to the point of absurdity (there is always a big focus on the economy during election times, and the housing problem is stoking the flames). There is still a lot of foreign investment in US companies, and exports have been doing well.

The problem in the market is mainly just a reminder that the market is far from being efficient. Most securities across the board were probably well overvalued before this drop began. I think the current drops we have seen recently are almost entirely a result of the classic wall street-panic mentality. This panic mentality is widespread, and is like a disease, infecting people throughout wall street, the media, and washington. Of course the mortgage screw-up is a real problem that has really been killing the lenders and homeowners involved, as well as others. But we have people like the fed. chairman Bernanke going on the news and talking about a "recession" well ahead of the data that would indicate a recession, and talkshow host after talkshow host, newspaper article after article, politician after politician reminding us all of our "current crisis". This state of panic is now so complete, that I find myself wondering whether or not it has been an orchestrated action...sociologists should be taking note on this situation for their next book outlining the best way to induce mass-panic.

I think your looking at the effects, rather than the causes, just as politicians and newspeople have bene doing. The stock markey has crashed because banks have suddenly found themselves with assets worth virtually nothing. As they cannot loan more, their coperate customers have trouble operating. Unemployment rises, demand falls, etc. How did these problems first arise; the government either (1) enticed banks to lend to high risk borrowers by having very low fed. rates and expansion of the mon. base, or (2) actually mandated that banks loan to such people, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The result was a structure of debt, much of it nearly worthless, throughout the economy, which has caused the 'current crisis.' By expanding the base and lowering rates further, the government is, admittedly, trying to stimulate new lending, to stimulate demand. The immediate crisis might well pass, but in allowing this, the government has made the eventual collapse that much worse. I don't see how this can be in doubt, unless one assumes that continual printing and borrowing is permamently sustainable. My feeling is that we are approaching a critical point; in the past, the government followed their keyensian polcies to stimulate growth in the economy, now and in the future, money, in increasingly large amounts, will have to spent just to prevent collapse. It is exponential, as is the graph of M3 against GDP, which reflects this.

Yes, I understand the collapse of the housing market, and am not trying to say that it was not the primary catalyst for this downturn in the market--that is undeniable.

But you also can't discount the power of panic on the direction of the market. While the mortgage-related securities gave the needed spark for the market downturn, the sense of panic is really what has taken us down. Of course much of this is the legitimate sense of writing down and/or writing off some of these businesses that will likely collapse due to their investments. But the panic mentality is very powerful as well, and can ruin markets on its own, as we have seen in the past. Surely you don't believe that these incredible fluctuations in market prices we have been seeing are the result of efficient valuation?

I think you misunderstand my argument; the recent flucuations in the market are not very important relative the 'real problem' that I'm talking about. I wasn't trying to convince you that the housing problem was the immediate cause of the flucuations; we can agree that that is pretty obvious. I was trying to explain that the housing bubble itself is not the prime cause, but rather the easy money/inflationairy policy of the last several decades which allowed the bubble to inflate and ensured its collapse.

However, the market is moved mostly by people who do very careful research, professionals investing on their own behalf or their institutions behalf. Little of the volume comes from ordinary people trading their stocks; most people with 401Ks or something similiar don't have that degree of control. My point is that, while the news has influenced the masses and agitated them, most traders have panicked for other reasons: though they might be equally irrational.

Either way, panic is not controllable, unless you beleive in a large and organized conspiracy, which I do not, though I can see your concerns about that.

"Ever wonder why fund managers can't beat the S&P 500? 'Cause they' re sheep, and sheep get slaughtered."