Quote:
Originally posted by apechild
Greed, otherwise known as rational self interest, is good. Everyone should act in his own best interest, provided he does so within an ethical and legal framework. Some CEOs have acted unethically, and many of them have been forced to pay fines or serve jail sentences for their crimes. As have some shareholders. So have some of the greedy union mobsters out there. But while corporations are subject to anti-trust legislation in efforts to limit the influence their greed can garner, no such legislation exists to limit the greedy anti-competitive behavior of the unions. What a shame...
|
There is a difference between greed and self interest. Greed is the taking more than you need, it is not a good thing and is not in the best interest of humanity.
Quote:
|
No. What's your point? Why should they?
|
Well, i guess my point is that if it is all right for the employer to bend the worker over the barrel, why is it wrong for the worker to attempt to exert power over the employer through organization? Both the employer and the workercan fuck eachother and themselves over- what's wrong with a level playing field.
Quote:
|
With objective economic analysis and sound reasoning. How would you like to rebut me?
|
Well, according to your endorsement of "rational self interest" and greed it is only rational and therefore good for the unions to try and get as much as they can for as little as they can, right? That only makes good economic sense?
Besides, with sound reasoning and objective economic analysis you could make a case for a great many things, including slavery and indentured servitude. You need to consider other factors- like is this ethical, is this something i wouldn't mind being on the other side of?
Quote:
|
Most economists and ceos are extremely well educated, successful, experienced individuals. Are you trying to somehow discredit what I'm saying by associating my words with those of financiers, business leaders, and experts in labor markets and monetary policy? Well thank you, filtherton. I'm flattered.
|
Actually, i was alluding to the over emphasis most economists and the average ceo place on the bottom line. Maximizing profit is apparently more important than providing a better quality of life, including the quality of life of the least fortunate among us.
Quote:
|
To think that someone should be paid more than $6 an hour when the labor they produce is not worth the expense of supervising their pathetic, useless butt is the insult, my friend. No one is entitled to hand outs. You have to earn what you make in this world. Don't like it? Then stand on a street corner and beg.
|
Are you paris hilton? How much is an hour of your life worth? How much is it worth when that hour is spent lining the pockets of someone who shows their appreciation by paying you as little as they can possibly get away with according to the law? That's bullshit. As for handouts, corporate welfare cost me more money as a taxpayer than social welfare last year. Indeed, where would our economy be if not for the handouts provided to such "needy" corporations as nike and microsoft.
Further, not all economists would argue that a minimum wage is a bad thing. Some predict that it may force employers to update the skills and productivity of their employees.
You're not the real world, you're a model of the real world based on many innacurate assumptions about the way things work. You're based on the idea of a free marketplace that doesn't actually exist attempting to justify and explain things with little regard to the idea that the economy exists to serve all of humanity, rather than to fuel its own fires ad infinitum.
Quote:
|
Maybe I could, but I think I've been more than generous already in dispensing my free economics lessons. I can't force you to understand it.
|
Or maybe you couldn't, since you apparently can't even acknowledge that there may be flaws in your assumptions. I certainly hope your econ lessons are free, since anyone paying for them would be under the assumption that there aren't any limitations to the accuracy of your statements. You assume the we live in a competitive free market(what does that even mean? do you mean perfect competition?)- where exactly does corporate welfare, trade tariffs, and the like come into the competitive free market? If you were offering a good econ lesson, you'd offer all the sides of the story
Quote:
|
I've given several already. I'm not taking your bait because this is becoming quite futile and a waste of my time.
|
I have seen no real-world examples, just one-sided economic theories and models.
Quote:
|
Basic concepts, like supply and demand govern rational human behavior. While some irrational people exist, these basic laws aren't even subject to debate. They are economic realities. Trying to argue with these concepts will do you about as much good as jumping off a cliff and arguing with gravity.
|
I'm not arguing against the laws of supply and demand, just that they are not as simple as you portray them. You're the one trying to argue that the only function of unions is to increase unemployment.
Heres one more:
Unions and the minimum wage increase wages and benefits for workers.
Workers have more disposable income.
Workers spend their disposable income.
More money goes into the economy, creating more growth opportunities for businesses in general.