Lessons From Economics

[WinePusher]

Introduction:

Economics is a subject that I am very passionate about and I've devoted much time to studying it and its many concepts. With the global financial crisis in 2008 and the widening gap between the rich and the poor throughout the world, the field of economics is becoming more and more popularized and sensationalized and, as a result, much economic misinformation is being dispensed by various people (particular liberal democrats). I do not claim nor will I argue that conservative republicans have a better grasp of economics than liberal democrats. Indeed, they are probably just as clueless (if not more so) when it comes to economics. However, the economic policies being advanced by the rightwing are consistent with mainstream economic theory unlike the policies being advocated for by liberals and democrats. Here you will witness a well-known liberal democrat flagrantly flaunting his confusion about economics, and many more examples can be provided if requested.

Taxes:

Here, I would like to deal with 2 of Robert Reich’s claims regarding taxation, public finance and the economy. In the video presented above, Robert Reich asserts that the following 2 items are lies:

1) High taxes on the rich hurt the economy.
2) Cutting the budget deficit is more important than boosting the economy with additional spending.

According to Robert Reich all of these claims are lies. In the video, Reich only spends about 30 seconds explaining how each of these claims is a lie and he fails to present any academic papers or statistical datasets to support his arguments. Let us analyze each of these 2 claims and see if Reich is correct, or if he is himself a 'liar.'

1) High taxes on the rich will hurt the economy.
High taxes in general will hurt the economy, no matter what income bracket they’re imposed upon. (1)(2) Economic growth is the consequence of higher savings, investment, production and productivity in the private sector, and taxes work against economic growth because taxation involves the transfer of capital from the private sector to the public sector. Many people like Robert Reich suffer from the delusion that economic growth is caused by higher consumption, and these people will often repeat the myth that the economy will grow if we can stimulate consumption. According to them, giving more money to poor people will 'boost' the economy because poor people are more likely to spend this money and goods and services while rich people will 'hoard' their money and make unproductive use of it. Statements like these indicate a severe lack of economic literacy. Money can never be truly hoarded because all money sitting in bank deposits is lent out and circulated throughout the economy in the form of loans. Whenever a rich person deposits their check into the bank, the bank translates the money into loans for businesses and mortgages. Indeed, the supply of loans is savings. A lack of savings indicates a low supply of loanable funds, and this would cause the price of loans (interest rates) to increase. In reality, the rich do far more to 'boost' economic growth by saving their money in banks and investing it in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. Taking money away from people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (who make extremely productive use of it) and giving it to a wasteful, corrupt, scandalous government makes no sense whatsoever. So, Reich is simply wrong on this. High taxes on the rich hurt the economy because it detracts from savings and investment and causes capital to exit the nation. In fact, if taxes were lowered there would be a massive repatriation of capital to the United States from abroad.

2) Cutting the budget deficit is more important than boosting the economy with additional spending.
The truth to this claim all depends on what economic perspective you are subscribing to. If you are a Keynesian then this proposition will obviously seem absurd to you. According to Keynes, government stimulus and spending during recessionary periods is the right course of action to take and so anybody who is advocating for less spending and less stimulus especially during a recession is talking nonsense. However, classical, neoclassical and Austrian economists adhere to a completely different economic theory that differs from Keynesian economics. According to these three schools, trying to stimulate and spend during a recession is the worst thing the government can do. The recession was brought about by excessive spending and consumption, so it's completely absurd to think that additional stimulus and spending will resolve the problem. Ultimately, what Robert Reich fails to understand is the definition of a recession. Macroeconomics textbooks tend to define recessions as being 2 or more consecutive quarters of declining GDP (economic growth). The decline in GDP is informally referred to as a bust, while the period preceding the bust is known as a boom, hence the boom and bust cycle. The cause of the bust is a point of contention in the field of macroeconomics and business cycle analysis, and various schools of thought all have their theories which try to explain this. Imo, the business cycle theory developed by the Austrian school of economic thought best explains recessions and depressions. I have sufficiently explained the Austrian Business Cycle Theory in many other of my posts so I don’t see a need to re-explain it here. From the Keynesian perspective, Robert Reich is justified in saying that item #2 is a lie. However, from the classical, neoclassical and Austrian perspective, Reich is dead wrong.

Free International Trade:

Free international trade is a peculiar case due to the bipartisan (democratic and republican) opposition against it. First, let us begin by defining what free international trade actually is. Free international trade refers to the free movement of goods and services between nations without any governmental hindrances or restrictions. It is important to stress the fact that we are examining free international trade and not free trade in general. The United States can essentially be seen as one enormous free trade area because goods and services are able to freely flow between states, and virtually no one objects to this (3). So, while there is no opposition to free trade on a national level there is a substantial amount of opposition against free trade on an international level. It must be pointed out that this is not a modern phenomenon. Free international trade was nonexistent during the era of mercantilism, which existed from the end of the 15th century to the beginning of the 18th century, and this economic system was dominated by protectionism. Protectionism is defined as the restriction of free international trade and can be viewed as the exact opposite of free international trade. Many arguments were used by mercantilists back when, and these arguments continue to be utilized by people to this very day. Unfortunately, they are steeped in fallacious logic and are rejected by most economists today.

The most common argument against free international trade is known as the 'worker protection argument.' The proponents of this argument often complain that free international trade leads to unemployment among domestic workers who work in import competing industries. For example, General Motors can be considered an import competing industry because GM has to compete with foreign cars (like Honda and Toyota) that are imported into the United States. If these foreign auto makers appeal to the American public, people will stop purchasing cars from GM and will turn to Honda and Toyota and, as a result, the workers employed by GM will be laid off. Therefore, the United States government should intervene in order to assist GM either by granting them subsidies or by making it more difficult for Honda and Toyota to sell cars in America by way of a tariff or a quota. This argument fails in a multitude of ways. First, competition is not something that should be prohibited or discouraged. The more competitive markets are, the better off consumers are and less competition leads to inefficient firms and higher prices. Second, I and many others acknowledge that some workers will be displaced if foreign firms are able to run domestic firms out of business. These workers must be retrained and re-equipped with different skills if this is the case, and the government may provide temporary aid to these displaced workers in order to ease the pain. While displaced workers may be a negative aspect of free international trade, the overall loss to society would be even greater if free international trade were prohibited. Now that we’ve dealt with the most popular criticism of free international trade, let us turn to arguments in favor of free international trade.

The case for free international trade was made by two very influential economists who both belong to the classical school of economic thought, and their names are Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Adam Smith is considered to be the man who founded the field of economics and his overall ideas and concepts are far too vast to list here. For the sake of brevity, we will focus only on Adam Smith’s work as it is relevant to free international trade. Adam Smith was in favor of free international trade, and he based his claims on what is known as the principle of absolute advantage. According to the principle of absolute advantage, nations should specialize and produce those commodities that they have an absolute advantage in and import those commodities for which they don’t have an absolute advantage. The concept of absolute advantage can be explained using the following example:

Assume a world with only two nations: Iceland and Puerto Rico. Additionally, assume that the only two commodities which can be produced are fur coats and bananas and assume that labor is the only factor input. Using common sense, we will determine which nation has the absolute advantage in which commodity. Iceland has the absolute advantage in fur coats and Puerto Rico has the absolute advantage in banana production, and this is due to the fact that Iceland is naturally endowed with a colder climate which allows for more polar bears and makes it easier to produce fur coats while Puerto Rico is naturally endowed with a warmer climate and can grow and produce banana’s with greater ease than Iceland. As a result, Iceland should focus on producing what its best at producing (fur coats) and import what it isn’t efficient at producing (bananas). Similarly, Puerto Rico should produce the commodity it has the absolute advantage in (bananas) and import the commodity that it doesn’t have an absolute advantage in (fur coats). It makes no sense for Iceland to produce bananas because the climatic conditions do not favor banana production and Iceland would have to divert resources away from fur coat production in order to do so. In the same way Puerto Rico shouldn’t produce fur coats because the climatic conditions do not favor fur coat production and Puerto Rico would have to divert resources away from Banana production in order to do so.

Now, we will take this idea one step further and assume that Iceland has an absolute advantage in the production of all commodities (in this case that would be fur coats and bananas). According to Adam Smith, Iceland really has no need to engage in trade with Puerto Rico because it has an absolute advantage in the production of all commodities and can produce everything better and more efficiently than Puerto Rico can. This is where David Ricardo comes in. As stated earlier, David Ricardo was an influential classical economist who developed the principle of comparative advantage (which is based off of the principle of absolute advantage). According to Ricardo, Iceland should still engage in trade with Puerto Rico despite the fact that Iceland has an absolute advantage in the production of all commodities (fur coats and bananas). Iceland must first determine which commodity it has a comparative advantage in, focus production on that commodity and import the commodity for which it does not have a comparative advantage. We must clearly define what we mean by comparative advantage. In order to understand the principle of comparative advantage, we must first understand the concept of opportunity costs. (4) Recall, from basic microeconomics, that an opportunity cost is the cost of that which is given up. The opportunity cost of me writing this post is whatever else I could have done instead. It is helpful to think of opportunity costs in terms of only 2 options. The opportunity cost of reading a book is watching TV, and the opportunity cost of watching TV is reading a book. You are presented with option 1 and option 2, and if you chose option 1 you will be giving up option 2. Therefore, the opportunity cost of option 1 is option 2 and, likewise, the opportunity cost of choosing option 2 is option 1. Now, apply this logic to our two nation world economy that was presented above. Iceland has an absolute advantage in fur coat and banana production while Puerto Rico has no absolute advantage whatsoever. If Iceland were to move more labor into producing fur coats, it would have to take away labor from producing bananas and, similarly, if Iceland were to move more labor into producing bananas it would have to take away labor from fur coat production. Therefore, the opportunity cost of producing fur coats is producing bananas, and the opportunity cost of producing bananas is producing fur coats. According to the principle of comparative advantage, Iceland should produce the commodity that it has the comparative advantage/smallest opportunity cost in. (5)

If nations specialize production in those commodities for which they have a comparative advantage in, and import those commodities for which they do not have a comparative advantage, the nation will experience higher levels of production, consumption, efficiency and growth. This is why free international trade is promoted by economists of all stripes. To put it shortly, the perceived costs of free international trade are greatly exceeded by the massive amounts of benefits associated with free international trade and anybody who understands economics realizes this.

Capitalism:

Many debaters on this site and many intellectuals in the media have criticized capitalism as being an exploitative system. A variety of criticisms have been launched against free markets and capitalism, and below I’ve provided a brief summary of what these criticisms entail and a refutation of the criticism:

Criticism 1) Capitalism breeds income inequality and poverty and causes wealth and income to be unevenly distributed throughout society.

Refutation: First, we must note that income inequality is an inherent part of any capitalist system. It is absurd to suggest that a janitor be paid the same amount of income as a surgeon. Clearly, the janitor possesses a smaller range of skills than a surgeon, and as a result occupations that don’t require much skill pay lower wages than occupations that require high levels of skill. Secondly, liberals tend to forget that income mobility is alive and well in the United States. (6) In the United States, people are not condemned to remain in any particular income quartile for the rest of their lives. They have every opportunity to increase their income and wealth, and over time people's earnings and savings to increase. Third, these people who are complaining about income inequality are looking at this issue from a very narrow perspective. In the context of the global economy, the poor people in America are in the top 1% of the entire world. Comparatively speaking, income inequality is far worse in other regions of the world than it is in America. Fourth, capitalism doesn’t breed poverty. If anything, capitalism produces prosperity and lifts livings standards. In the field of developmental economics, any country who wishes to achieve high growth over a long period of time (economic development) should undergo industrialization. Industrialization is most conducive in free market capitalist economies, which is why nations like Poland, Mexico, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have scaled back socialist regulations and introduced market based capitalist initiatives which have propelled them to higher livings standards. Indeed, China itself didn’t begin to attain growth and development until it began dabbling with the free market.

Criticism 2) Free Market Capitalism (otherwise known as Lassiez Faire) is unworkable and leads to corruption and economic catastrophes.

Refutation: The crux of this argument seems to be that the market economy cannot regulate itself, and needs an exogenous entity to control it and fix any of these so called ‘market failures.’ The 2008 Great Recession is often blamed upon the free market, as is the Great Depression. People who make these assertions are dead wrong, and most likely haven’t looked at the subject in any considerable depth. First, the great depression wasn’t caused by the market in any way whatsoever. The government imposed tariff (known as the Smoot-Hawley tariff) stopped the free flow of trade around the world and set off many retaliatory tariffs from other nations. Additionally, the monetary over-expansion in the early 1920’s on the part of the Federal Reserve caused many mal-investments and the response of the Federal Reserve in the wake of the depression (which was to contract the money supply and close the banks to prevent a run on banks) worsened the problem irreparably. Indeed, both Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke agree that the Great Depression was caused by the inefficiency of the Federal Reserve. Similarly, the Great Recession in 2008 was caused by monetary over-expansion on the part of the Federal Reserve in the early 2000’s in response to the dot.com bubble. A variety of government agencies also contributed to the problem, including the repackaging of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the community reinvestment act which pressured banks to loan out money to unqualified borrowers. Both the recession of 08 and the depression of the 1930’s were the result of government intervention, not the free market.

Conclusion:

Liberals and progressives (and anybody else who subscribes to their economic philosophy) are to economics what creationists are to biology and physics. They are dogmatic government fundamentalists who will continue to spout their ridiculous ideas regardless of what the evidence shows.

Footnotes and References:

(1) http://taxfoundation.org/blog/budget-re ... mic-growth

(2) http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-e ... and-growth

(3) A toy manufacturer in New York can ship toys into California without the fear of any tariff or quota restrictions. In this sense, there is no restriction of trade between states.

(4) Here is a good article explaining opportunity costs.

(5) Economists today still accept the logic and truth behind the principle of comparative advantage. However, the principle of comparative advantage has been built upon in what is known as the Hecksher-Ohlin model.

(6) http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... /ota99.pdf

Questions for debate:

1) Do you agree that liberals/progressives/democrats lack a deep understanding of economics as creationists and evolution skeptics lack a deep understanding of biology and physics?

2) Perhaps the most vital question (kudos to cnorman18 for this quotation) is: do you understand economics? Are your opinions and beliefs informed by actual economic theory?

[WinePusher]

Because government workers work for the government, while private sector workers work for private businesses. The wages being paid out to government workers directly affect things like the budget, the deficit and the debt. So, when a public sector union 'negotiates' on behalf of public sector workers for higher wages they are exerting indirect control over the budget process.

By that standard, workers for firms that hold government contracts shouldn't have the right to unionize either... Or the firms that supply them...

Why not? The main concern regarding public sector unions is their ability to indirectly control government finances. For example, if a union manages to force the government of Wisconsin to pay out higher wages, the difference will come out of the states budget. I don't see what government contracts have to do with any of this.

What privileges or protections are you talking about? Examples?

See here.

Overstated and blatantly distorted propaganda from a "right to work for less with fewer benefits" site. Uh-huh.

Uh, earlier you used a biased source from a liberal blog so you really don't have any right to condemn my sources.

I'm not a democrat and I don't support the democratic party, so why would I give my support to unions who, by in large, back the democratic party? Would you give your time and money to an organization that adamantly supports the republican party? Probably not. If unions were more apolitical then this wouldn't be a problem at all.

But it's OK if partisan Republican tycoons flood the process with cash. In other words, it's not the money you oppose -- just that Democrats shouldn't get it. Clear enough.

I'm pretty sure I already said (here and elsewhere) that big money in politics is a problem. The easiest way to fix this problem is to implement a cap on contributions and a cap on spending for elections.

What about them? The Koch Brothers have every right to use their money as they see fit.

But organizations of ordinary people don't, because they don't support Republicans.

No, they do have the right to use their money however they see fit. If labor unions want to support the democratic party with large sums of money, then they have every right to. However, in doing so they risk alienating people who do not share their political viewpoints. Also, the expressed purpose of labor unions is to represent the working classes. How does playing politics with money help workers?

And corporations like Walmart shouldn't have the right to suppress or discourage union activity?

By firing people for trying to organize, ie exercising their freedom of speech and assembly, and for no other reason? Absolutely not.

Have you ever worked for an employer wherein your freedoms weren't limited? Most employers require uniforms, thereby limiting their workers freedom to dress however they want to. Most employers require their workers to say certain things and prohibit workers from saying certain things, thereby limiting their freedom of speech. The point is that when you work for a company you have to surrender many of your freedoms when you enter into the work environment. And yes, companies should be able to let go of employees whenever they want (so long as there are no contractual obligations). This is known as at will employment.

Look, I don't have a problem so long as there is no government intervention for or against unions. However, Walmart has every right to fight union activity just as Walmart workers have every right to try and organize themselves into a union.

But it's OK to fire them if they try, and they should be apolitical and shouldn't support the party of their choice, but it's perfectly OK for Republcan billionaires... OK, got it.

Uh no, I'll lay out my position more succinctly. I don't support big money in politics, whether it comes from democratic donors or republican donors. I mean, here you are condemning the Koch Brothers, yet I haven't heard any condemnation for people like George Soros who pour equivalent amounts of money into the political system. Do you not care about what George Soros does cause he's liberal?

Thanks for the lesson.

No problem. And btw, there wasn't any mention of unions in my topic. I focused on three major areas: taxes, free international trade and capitalism.

[JoeyKnothead]

As the question was asked...

Joey, isn't this the area of discourse that got you banned previously?

I'm heading over to ask about this issue in the member's area. I sincerely think the notion is more hilarious than offensive, but then again, here's a mod telling me they think otherwise.

I make my comments known so the observer is better informed.

With that bit out of the way, and seeing the only real challenge to my Post 13 is where commas oughta go, I'll leave the thread be for now.

[cnorman18]

Winepusher:

I thought it might be illuminating to take a closer look at the claims on your “Right to Work for Less With Fewer Benefits� website. Here we go:

Privilege #1:
Exemption from prosecution for union violence.

The most egregious example of organized labor’s special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision….

This is a lie by omission. What US v. Enmons determined was that the union could not be prosecuted for extortion under the Hobbs act, not that it could not be prosecuted at all. From the Wikipedia article (my emphasis added):

The court's ruling set a legal precedent where violent acts against an employer by workers on strike, including destruction of property, assault, and homicide, are not punishable offenses under federal law. They can, however, be punishable under state or federal civil and criminal laws. These laws can include assault and battery, murder, and theft, among others.
In understanding Enmons, it is important to keep in mind that what the Hobbs Act outlaws is extortion, not just any bad act. Federal law, in particular the National Labor Relations Act, says that collective bargaining and strikes in support of collective bargaining goals are legal and protected. Therefore, since collective bargaining is purpose that is not extortion, one of the key elements of a Hobbs Act violation is not met.

Union violence is no more “exempt from prosecution� than any other kind of violence. It’s just not chargeable under the Hobbs Act as “extortion.�

Privilege #2:
Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.

The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.

This is also a lie. The Clayton Act does no such thing. Again, from Wikipedia

…Section 6 of the Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 17) exempts labor unions and agricultural organizations, saying ‘that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and permit[ting] labor organizations to carry out their legitimate objective’. Therefore, boycotts, peaceful strikes, peaceful picketing, and collective bargaining are not regulated by this statute. Injunctions could be used to settle labor disputes only when property damage was threatened.

Nothing there about enforcing monopolies. In point of fact, in many industries, workers have several unions to choose from.

Privilege #3:
Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or “exclusive representation,� which is embedded in most of the country’s labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.

Another blatantly self-serving distortion. All three of the Acts mentioned ALLOW employees to CHOOSE THEIR OWN representatives, through free elections, and compels the EMPLOYER to negotiate with those representatives in good faith. The above claims are analogous to complaining that political elections prohibit citizens from “unwanted� representation in Congress and from speaking for themselves in Congress and making their own laws.

Privilege #4:
Power to collect forced union dues.

Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 26 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on “exclusive federal enclaves,� and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.

Another lie. From, interestingly, the same source where you obtained this list (emphasis added, again):

The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the [National Right To Work) Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.
Beck makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the NLRA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

In other words, non-members pay only for the benefits they actually receive from union activity; they do NOT pay union dues or for the activities of the union.

Privilege #5:
Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements….

More distortions and lies by omission. There are no such exemptions in the FECA that do not apply equally to corporations — and since Citizens United, no such limits, on either unions OR corporations.

Privilege #6:
Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union’s collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.

An astonishing claim, and a truly despicable distortion both of the law and its intent. The NLRA and so on compel employers to NEGOTIATE with their employees’ ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Nothing compels them to accept those representatives’ terms, or forces them to make offers they do not wish to make. Collective bargaining is a RIGHT, and the law enforces that right. That’s all. That corporations would rather negotiate with employees separately and keep them in the dark about the pay and benefits given to other employees is obvious enough — and just as obviously wrong.

Privilege #7:
Right to trespass on an employer’s private property.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer’s property.

Another blatant lie. From Wikipedia, again. Note the added emphasis:

The [Norris-LaGuardia] Act states that yellow-dog contracts, where workers agree as a condition of employment to not join a labor union, are unenforceable in federal court. It also establishes that employees are free to form unions without employer interference and prevents the federal courts from issuing injunctions in nonviolent labor disputes. The three provisions include protecting worker's self-organization and liberty or "collective bargaining", removing jurisdiction from federal courts vis-a-vis the issuance of injunctions in non-violent labor disputes, and outlawing the "yellow dog" contract.
Section 13A of the act was fully applied by the Supreme Court of the United States with a 1938 decision, New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., in an opinion authored by Justice Owen Roberts. The Court held that the act meant to prohibit employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute, even when such dissemination occurs on an employer's private property.

The issue there is not “trespassing,� but freedom of speech. Really, this sort of deliberate distortion and propagandizing is indefensible.
This law also makes it illegal to fire employees for advocating unions, as opposed to your contention that workers can be required to give up their rights at the door to the workplace. No, they don’t, and they shouldn’t have to.

Privilege #8:
Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work.

Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as “scabs� to set them up for retaliation.

Another blatant distortion of the facts. Here is the truth, from the National Labor Relations Board website. Note added emphasis of portions which apply to the claims being made here:

Strikes for a lawful object. Employees who strike for a lawful object fall into two classes “economic strikers� and “unfair labor practice strikers.� Both classes continue as employees, but unfair labor practice strikers have greater rights of reinstatement to their jobs. 
Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. 
Unfair labor practice strikers defined. Employees who strike to protest an unfair labor practice committed by their employer are called unfair labor practice strikers. Such strikers can be neither discharged nor permanently replaced. When the strike ends, unfair labor practice strikers, absent serious misconduct on their part, are entitled to have their jobs back even if employees hired to do their work have to be discharged. 
If the Board finds that economic strikers or unfair labor practice strikers who have made an unconditional request for reinstatement have been unlawfully denied reinstatement by their employer, the Board may award such strikers backpay starting at the time they should have been reinstated. 

Yes, there is a Right to Strike. Without it, unions, collective bargaining, and labor law itself would be virtually meaningless. This “privilege� is just a basic human right. It is NOT a basic human right of employers to dictate terms of employment as their whims move them.

Privilege #9:
Union-only cartels on construction projects.

Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms. Such practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules. So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.

This, at last, is a subject worthy of debate; but still, we are talking about AGREEMENTS here, not mandates. Even President Obama could do no more than “encourage� such agreements in his Executive Order on the subject. If a Legislature, consisting of representatives freely chosen by citizens, wishes to award contracts only to companies who enter into such agreements, it seems to me that that is a legitimate power; and private projects are not required to enter into such agreements at all.

Besides, if union membership is as low as you say, how much impact can such agreements have?

Privilege #10:
Government funding of forced unionism.

On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to organized labor, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers. Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for “international labor programs� overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group. Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on “job training programs� that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. Union bosses also benefit from a plethora of state and local government giveaways.

Hmmm. Total, about $3 billion. How horrible. How wasteful.

Let’s make a simple comparison; the following is, again, from Wikipedia, and note the added emphasis.

Policy analysis conducted by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, argued that United States fiscal policy allocated approximately US$92 billion in the 2006 federal budget toward programs that the authors considered to be corporate welfare.Subsequent analysis by the institute estimated that number to be US$100 billion in the 2012 federal budget. It should be noted, however, that Cato's criteria, which are not clearly defined, do not include tax loopholes or trade barriers.

$3 billion versus $100 billion plus tax loopholes and trade barriers.

Perhaps we should be talking about the special privileges granted to Corporations.

Like I said; “Overstated and blatantly distorted propaganda from a "right to work for less with fewer benefits" site.�

Without unions and the right to strike, we would still be living in the world of the Robber Barons of the 1890s — a state to which the megacorporations and corporate fat cats, like the Waltons and the Koch Brothers, are working hard to return us. And, no, I have no objection to the activities of George Soros, Bill Gates and other liberals — since they are using their wealth on BEHALF of the 99% and not only to enrich themselves and their megarich friends. Small wonder that they and their toadies spend so much time and effort smearing and trying to destroy the unions. Without the unions, they would be free to rule at will. They're pretty close to it now, when the 1600 or so billionaires int the world have increased their net worth by a TRILLION dollars in only one year, while wages remain stagnant. Four of the ten richest people in America are the owners of Wal-Mart -- while we taxpayers subsidize every store to the tune of around a million dollars to allow their cruelly underpaid employees to survive. It's not the POOR who are stealing my tax dollars -- it's the RICH.

[WinePusher]

Privilege #1:
Exemption from prosecution for union violence.

The most egregious example of organized labor’s special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision….

This is a lie by omission. What US v. Enmons determined was that the union could not be prosecuted for extortion under the Hobbs act, not that it could not be prosecuted at all.

In the United States v. Enmons decision, union violence is exempt from the Hobbs Act. This is what my source states. How exactly have you shown this to be a lie? You brought up many points that have no relevance whatsoever since my source doesn't claim that union violence is exempt from all forms of prosecution, just prosecution under the Hobbes act which is a federal law. Fact: unions are exempt from provisions in the Hobbs act. In an attempt to refute this fact, all you've done is bring up a series of red herrings, like pointing out that union violence is still subject to state criminal law. However, my source never objected to this. All my source said was that unions are exempt from federal prosecution under the Hobbs act and nothing you presented refutes this.

Privilege #2:
Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.

The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.

This is also a lie. The Clayton Act does no such thing. Again, from Wikipedia

…Section 6 of the Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 17) exempts labor unions and agricultural organizations, saying ‘that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and permit[ting] labor organizations to carry out their legitimate objective’. Therefore, boycotts, peaceful strikes, peaceful picketing, and collective bargaining are not regulated by this statute. Injunctions could be used to settle labor disputes only when property damage was threatened.

Nothing there about enforcing monopolies. In point of fact, in many industries, workers have several unions to choose from.

My source says that unions are exempt from the Clayton Antitrust Act, and your Wikipedia article confirms this. By being exempt from this law, which is meant to restrict monopolies from forming, unions are free to 'forcibly drive out alternative employee bargaining groups.' Remember what I said, unions are granted special privileges and protections by the government, and this is a clear example of a government privilege.

Privilege #3:
Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or “exclusive representation,� which is embedded in most of the country’s labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.

Another blatantly self-serving distortion. All three of the Acts mentioned ALLOW employees to CHOOSE THEIR OWN representatives, through free elections, and compels the EMPLOYER to negotiate with those representatives in good faith. The above claims are analogous to complaining that political elections prohibit citizens from “unwanted� representation in Congress and from speaking for themselves in Congress and making their own laws.

Do you see how absurd your comparison is? Yes, people are essentially forced to 'accept' representation from their politicians in Congress whether they want it or not. Does this mean that people should in turn be forced to accept representation by a union even if they don't desire it? To people who promote freedom and liberty, the answer is a resounding NO. And again, you failed to actually address the claim my source makes. Unions have the power to force employees to accept unwanted representation. If you don't agree with compulsive union membership and representation, then you are a de facto supporter of right to work laws.

Privilege #4:
Power to collect forced union dues.

Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 26 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on “exclusive federal enclaves,� and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.

Another lie. From, interestingly, the same source where you obtained this list (emphasis added, again):

The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the [National Right To Work) Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.
Beck makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the NLRA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

In other words, non-members pay only for the benefits they actually receive from union activity; they do NOT pay union dues or for the activities of the union.

You have once again failed to actually address the claim itself. The claim made by my article is that unions have the power to collect forced union dues and the article you reference support this claim: "The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer."

Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements….

More distortions and lies by omission. There are no such exemptions in the FECA that do not apply equally to corporations — and since Citizens United, no such limits, on either unions OR corporations.

So according to you this claim isn't a lie, it's just incomplete since my source failed to mention that this privilege granted to unions also applies equally to other organizations. Again, it's not a lie and nothing you presented refutes it.

Privilege #6:
Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union’s collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.

An astonishing claim, and a truly despicable distortion both of the law and its intent. The NLRA and so on compel employers to NEGOTIATE with their employees’ ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Nothing compels them to accept those representatives’ terms, or forces them to make offers they do not wish to make. Collective bargaining is a RIGHT, and the law enforces that right. That’s all. That corporations would rather negotiate with employees separately and keep them in the dark about the pay and benefits given to other employees is obvious enough — and just as obviously wrong.

Collective bargaining is a right? Hah! Forcing someone to negotiate with you (which is an act of coercion) is not a right, rather it's a government privilege that has been bestowed upon unions. Can you cite any other area in the market where forced negotiations take place?

Privilege #7:
Right to trespass on an employer’s private property.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer’s property.

Another blatant lie. From Wikipedia, again. Note the added emphasis:

The [Norris-LaGuardia] Act states that yellow-dog contracts, where workers agree as a condition of employment to not join a labor union, are unenforceable in federal court. It also establishes that employees are free to form unions without employer interference and prevents the federal courts from issuing injunctions in nonviolent labor disputes. The three provisions include protecting worker's self-organization and liberty or "collective bargaining", removing jurisdiction from federal courts vis-a-vis the issuance of injunctions in non-violent labor disputes, and outlawing the "yellow dog" contract.
Section 13A of the act was fully applied by the Supreme Court of the United States with a 1938 decision, New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., in an opinion authored by Justice Owen Roberts. The Court held that the act meant to prohibit employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute, even when such dissemination occurs on an employer's private property.


The issue there is not “trespassing,� but freedom of speech. Really, this sort of deliberate distortion and propagandizing is indefensible.
This law also makes it illegal to fire employees for advocating unions, as opposed to your contention that workers can be required to give up their rights at the door to the workplace. No, they don’t, and they shouldn’t have to.

Once again, nothing here refutes the claim that unions have the right to trespass on employer's private property. Your Wikipedia source even concedes this fact by saying that unions have the right to dispense information even on the employer's private property. This is called trespassing.

Privilege #8:
Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work.

Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as “scabs� to set them up for retaliation.

Another blatant distortion of the facts.

Are you joking? This is a self evident fact. You even admit to this later on by writing: "Yes, there is a Right to Strike. Without it, unions, collective bargaining, and labor law itself would be virtually meaningless. This “privilege� is just a basic human right. It is NOT a basic human right of employers to dictate terms of employment as their whims move them."

So, as we can see you have no grounds to call this a 'lie.' It's obviously NOT a lie.

Like I said; “Overstated and blatantly distorted propaganda from a "right to work for less with fewer benefits" site.�

I appreciate you going through each claim item by item, however you proved absolutely nothing in your post. You were unable to show any of these items to be lies, and your Wikipedia articles only confirm the truth of my source. The fact is unions are granted special privileges, protections and exemptions from government and you would be very hard pressed to try and dispute this fact.

And, no, I have no objection to the activities of George Soros, Bill Gates and other liberals — since they are using their wealth on BEHALF of the 99% and not only to enrich themselves and their megarich friends.

Really? You're comparing George Soros to Bill Gates? WOW, talk about a false equivalence. Bill Gates is a famous philanthropist, George Soros is a famous political donor who is no different than the Koch Brothers. So, apparently you only get outraged when it's a conservative pouring huge money in politics. If it's a liberal like George Soros doing it, well that's ok since their money is going to causes that I support.

[Danmark]

I'm not expert in economics, but I have one question. Why does has the U.S. national economy done better under Democrats than under Republican administrations?
There have been several articles on this subject. Here's one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... -democrat/

[WinePusher]

I'm not expert in economics, but I have one question. Why does has the U.S. national economy done better under Democrats than under Republican administrations?
There have been several articles on this subject. Here's one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... -democrat/

Due to chance and coincidence, imo. The political affiliation of politicians has no bearing on the performance of the economy. What really matters are the economic policies that have been implemented by politicians. Socialist economic policies, which are geared towards central planning and regulation, are traditionally supported by Democrats while market oriented economic policies are traditionally supported by Republicans, and the economic history of the United States clearly shows that market oriented economic policies results in higher growth and prosperity than socialist economic policies.

Increased government intervention into the economy by FDR prolonged and worsened the Great Depression, just like how increased government intervention by Obama prolonged the Great Recessions and worsened the recovery. Central planning and price fixing by the federal reserve caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession, and it was under the Reagan Administration that the horrible stagflation of the 1970s was reduced. Additionally, the Clinton Administration implemented many market oriented economic policies that were drafted by the republican controlled Congress. The Clinton boom can be attributed to the republican controlled Congress, since all economic legislation is formulated by the Congress and not the President.

[Danmark]

I'm not expert in economics, but I have one question. Why does has the U.S. national economy done better under Democrats than under Republican administrations?
There have been several articles on this subject. Here's one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... -democrat/

Due to chance and coincidence, imo. The political affiliation of politicians has no bearing on the performance of the economy. What really matters are the economic policies that have been implemented by politicians. Socialist economic policies, which are geared towards central planning and regulation, are traditionally supported by Democrats while market oriented economic policies are traditionally supported by Republicans, and the economic history of the United States clearly shows that market oriented economic policies results in higher growth and prosperity than socialist economic policies.

It's a pretty long track record to claim it is mere chance.

Increased government intervention into the economy by FDR prolonged and worsened the Great Depression, just like how increased government intervention by Obama prolonged the Great Recessions and worsened the recovery. Central planning and price fixing by the federal reserve caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession, and it was under the Reagan Administration that the horrible stagflation of the 1970s was reduced. Additionally, the Clinton Administration implemented many market oriented economic policies that were drafted by the republican controlled Congress. The Clinton boom can be attributed to the republican controlled Congress, since all economic legislation is formulated by the Congress and not the President.

Won't you agree that your claim about FDR's policies 'worsening the depression' is a claim that is very hotly disputed by economists? It is beyond my expertise and my interest to argue the issue; but I rely on the fact that this is a claim the economic experts that are above both our pay grades hotly dispute.

One of the arguments that has always intrigued me is that, if I recall correctly, many 'experts' from both sides agree that what really got the U.S. out of the depression was the massive government spending for WWII. If massive government spending for a project that essentially blew up and destroyed the products it produced helped the economy, how much more would massive government spending in peace time for basic infrastructure benefit the economy?

I fully agree that a true free market benefits us all. But I also contend that a true free market is impossible without government intervention. A market that is controlled by a very few is not free at all and destroys itself by its very success.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 24 by WinePusher]

Continued distortions, deletions and omissions -- especially of any comment on claims #9 and #10 -- noted. Even when a claim is explicitly contradicted by your own source, and you quote it, as in #4, you seem determined to stand by it.

I should have known better than to ask you the question; your tactics are well known around here, and I've never cared for them. I'm done. Have a nice day.

[WinePusher]

Continued distortions, deletions and omissions -- especially of any comment on claims #9 and #10 -- noted.

I felt the same way about your post cnorman18. In my opinion, your post was full of distortions, deletions, omissions, blunders, errors and flaws. However, I actually took the time to go through your post, dissect it, read it and respond to it point by point. In doing so, I showed your post to be full of distortions and errors. Unfortunately, you seem incapable of doing the same. Instead of showing how my post is wrong, you just say that it is. Sorry, but your opinions are worthless in my eyes especially when it comes to topics like this. Instead of saying that my post is full of distortions, you should show it. That's what a good debater would do.

I should have known better than to ask you the question; your tactics are well known around here, and I've never cared for them.

The fact that my posts spark such anger and frustration from you and your internet buddies only tells me that I should continue on with my 'tactics' (whatever those may be). And btw, I would expect more civil behavior from someone like you, who always seems to be complaining about aggressiveness and incivility. Cnorman18, you really have no right to whine about other people's incivility and personal attacks when you yourself are guilty of it. I haven't made any personal attacks towards you and I've tried to be civil towards you in our exchanges. I can only assume that you're unable to refute my post and this makes you angry and upset, and as a result you feel the need to sling personal attacks at me.

Remember what Socrates said? "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Since you're the one engaging in slander....well, I'm sure people can figure out the rest.

I'm done. Have a nice day.

Bye! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 29 by WinePusher]

I posted no "personal attacks." I said I don't care for your tactics, and I don't.

For example: characterizing my own post as "anger and frustration," "whining" and "incivility," claiming I'm "unable to refute your post," "slinging personal attacks," and even accusing me of "slander," along with claiming that I'm "angry and upset." All those ARE either personal attacks or propaganda tactics. That last, in fact, is one of the oldest and lamest tactics on this forum -- baiting your opponent by claiming he's emotionally upset when he patently isn't. We disagree, that's all, and I don't care to argue any further. Looks like YOU'RE the one taking all this personally.

Any careful reader of this thread will see who is distorting the truth and who is posting it. Replying to rebuttals with no more than "My source says you're wrong" and repeating your distorted and false claims isn't particularly good debating itself, in my own opinion -- especially when you omit without comment my refutations of #9 and, even more significantly, #10. $3 billion for unions -- and $100 billion, plus special loopholes, tax credits, and subsidies, for CORPORATIONS -- and which concerns you? The $3 billion, of course.

No need to post another victory dance. You might think you "won," but I doubt if anyone but other hardcore supporters of rule by the wealthy would agree.