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]

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

First, would you care to specify what my 'tactics' are and why you don't like them? Second, you don't think it's a personal attack to demean your opponents debate tactics and insinuate that they're terrible debaters? Really? So that's ok, but when someone turns around and says that your statements are uncivil, slanderous, well that's not ok. Here's the thing, if you didn't want to make this personal you shouldn't have made personal remarks about me. Don't start what you can't finish.

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.

I'd say the lamest tactic on this forum can be found in your post 28. I rebutted your post point by point, and instead of doing the same you chose to ignore my post, sling personal attacks at me.

We disagree, that's all, and I don't care to argue any further. Looks like YOU'RE the one taking all this personally.

You could've said: WinePusher, I don't agree with your remarks but I don't have any interest in continuing our debate. I'm done, have a good day.

I would've replied with a friendly remark, saying: Alright cnorman18, we'll just agree to disagree. Be well.

But, instead of taking the high road you chose to take the pitifully low road by saying: 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.

If you don't think this is an uncivil remark well then, I can't help you. Just keep in mind that you have no right to condemn other people about uncivil behavior when you're guilty of it.

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.

Why would I respond to 9 and 10 when you agreed with them? Your only response to 10 was that, well government also gives money to corporations boohoo. I don't think government should be granting subsidies to any private sector organization so there's nothing to debate.

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.

I don't think I've won and I don't approach debate with an immature, win-lose attitude. I'm merely pointing out that, according to Socrates, you've done yourself a huge disservice by injecting slanderous personal remarks into the debate.

[dianaiad]

[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.

[Replying to post 28 by cnorman18]

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.
...
Cnorman18, you really have no right to whine about other people's incivility and personal attacks when you yourself are guilty of it.....

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

Moderator Warning


You have both been on this forum long enough to know the rules regarding comments regarding posters, rather than addressing the content of the posts.

No more comments about the other guy's tactics and how you don't appreciate them. If you can't deal with the content of the posts alone, then take a deep breath....and deal with the content of the posts alone.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[cnorman18]

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

First, would you care to specify what my 'tactics' are and why you don't like them?

I gave examples. I even said, "For example..."

Second, you don't think it's a personal attack to demean your opponents debate tactics and insinuate that they're terrible debaters?

Where did I say any such thing? I said I didn't care for them. That's all.

Really? So that's ok, but when someone turns around and says that your statements are uncivil, slanderous, well that's not ok.

When they weren't "uncivil" and "slanderous" -- no, that's not OK.

Here's the thing, if you didn't want to make this personal you shouldn't have made personal remarks about me. Don't start what you can't finish.

They weren't personal remarks. They were about your TACTICS, not your character.

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.

I'd say the lamest tactic on this forum can be found in your post 28. I rebutted your post point by point, and instead of doing the same you chose to ignore my post, sling personal attacks at me.

Since I didn't consider your "rebuttals" to be either on-point or effective, I didn't see any reason to continue. That's not a tactic; that's a withdrawal from the debate -- and I notice you haven't bothered to "rebut" my charges concerning the statements you quoted.

We disagree, that's all, and I don't care to argue any further. Looks like YOU'RE the one taking all this personally.

You could've said: WinePusher, I don't agree with your remarks but I don't have any interest in continuing our debate. I'm done, have a good day.

Other than my (wholly justified) remark about your taking this personally, which you clearly are -- what's the difference between those two statements?

I would've replied with a friendly remark, saying: Alright cnorman18, we'll just agree to disagree. Be well.

So why don't you do that now, instead of escalating your hostility?

But, instead of taking the high road you chose to take the pitifully low road by saying: 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.

If you don't think this is an uncivil remark well then, I can't help you. Just keep in mind that you have no right to condemn other people about uncivil behavior when you're guilty of it.

What's the problem with what I said? You don't back down from or retract anything, ever, no matter what is presented to you. Isn't that pretty much your approach? I don't care for it. No point in going on. That's all.

I don't plan to engage with you at all in the future. I suppose that's "uncivil," too....

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.

Why would I respond to 9 and 10 when you agreed with them? Your only response to 10 was that, well government also gives money to corporations boohoo. I don't think government should be granting subsidies to any private sector organization so there's nothing to debate.

Except that your "source" doesn't mention that, either. Pretending that unions have "special privileges" when in many of those cases corporations have the same, or even greater privileges, is in my opinion deceptive and propagandistic. Fair is fair, and your source isn't; it's blatantly biased, distorts the truth, and is, as I said, a propaganda site, period. Wikipedia and the NLRB are NOT propaganda sites -- and as I pointed out, your own source flatly contradicted your claim about "forced payment of union dues." Fees for services rendered, yes; but not union dues, and that is NOT a fine distinction, even according to, again, your own source. You stood by it and repeated it anyway.

THAT'S the kind of tactic I don't care for; never concede a point, no matter what. You might think that's OK; I don't. That's not a personal attack at all. It's an expression of my personal taste.

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.

I don't think I've won and I don't approach debate with an immature, win-lose attitude.

If that's true, why can't you concede a point even when it's clearly wrong, even from your own sources? I just wanted to discuss these matters; YOU were the one posting one-sided propaganda and protesting when it was disputed.

I'm merely pointing out that, according to Socrates, you've done yourself a huge disservice by injecting slanderous personal remarks into the debate.

There's that allegation of "slander," repeated yet again. Here's the legal definition of slander:

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

Please show me how saying "I don't care for your tactics" qualifies.

It doesn't. It's very clearly an expression of opinion and not of fact, and says nothing whatever about your character or morality. It is therefore neither an untruth nor damaging to your reputation, and therefore cannot, by definition, be slander.

Accusing ME of "slander," therefore, IS a personal attack. Or will you concede the point and admit that I have posted no "slander" here? That would also prove that my opinion about your approach to debate is wrong, of course...

Up to you. I don't especially care; I'm not particularly invested in this debate. That's why I attempted to withdraw from it.

As far as I'm concerned, we'll just agree to disagree. Be well, Winepusher.

[WinePusher]

They weren't personal remarks. They were about your TACTICS, not your character.

Refer to the moderator warning for any confusions that you still may have about this.

Why would I respond to 9 and 10 when you agreed with them? Your only response to 10 was that, well government also gives money to corporations boohoo. I don't think government should be granting subsidies to any private sector organization so there's nothing to debate.

Except that your "source" doesn't mention that, either. Pretending that unions have "special privileges" when in many of those cases corporations have the same, or even greater privileges, is in my opinion deceptive and propagandistic.

Except that corporations, and other private sector organizations, do not enjoy many of these special privileges granted to unions. The only item on this list that applies equally to corporations is item 10, since the government does dish out subsidies to organizations it favors. Are there any other privileges on this list that corporations also have? Do corporations enjoy privileges 1-9? NO.

Fair is fair, and your source isn't; it's blatantly biased, distorts the truth, and is, as I said, a propaganda site, period.

I never said my source was 'fair.' However, the content listed in my source is factual and accurate. Nothing you've presented so far says otherwise.

Wikipedia and the NLRB are NOT propaganda sites -- and as I pointed out, your own source flatly contradicted your claim about "forced payment of union dues." Fees for services rendered, yes; but not union dues, and that is NOT a fine distinction, even according to, again, your own source. You stood by it and repeated it anyway.

Your Wikipedia links merely gave detailed descriptions of the laws and acts mentioned in my source. Nothing in your Wikipedia links refuted the truth of my source, and I went through each item explaining why in detail. Of course, you ignored my refutations and chose to exist the debate. And your objection to item 4 is laughable. It makes me think you didn't read it past the first sentence, since the source says: 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.

As you can see, nonmembers are required to financially support union activity, which is what my source says.

THAT'S the kind of tactic I don't care for; never concede a point, no matter what. You might think that's OK; I don't. That's not a personal attack at all. It's an expression of my personal taste.

Oh, I see. You're upset because I'm not conceding the argument to you. You don't like my tactics because I'm still continuing dispute your claims. I saw you doing this to Divine Insight, telling him that he had to stop making claims about Judaism just because you didn't like what he was saying. Listen cnorman18, you may think that you've 'won the argument' but I disagree. The arguments you made against my source were fallacious and illogical, so of course I'm not going to concede to the debate to you. You don't have the right to silence other people just because you don't like what they're saying, whether it be me or Divine Insight.

If that's true, why can't you concede a point even when it's clearly wrong, even from your own sources? I just wanted to discuss these matters; YOU were the one posting one-sided propaganda and protesting when it was disputed.

Because you've presented nothing that shows my source to be wrong. I just wanted to discuss this issue too, and I said specifically and civilly that I didn't agree with your assessment of my source and explained why. Apparently, disagreement is a dishonest tactic according to some. You may think you've made a awesome argument, but no one is obligated to accept it and concede the debate to you.

As far as I'm concerned, we'll just agree to disagree. Be well, Winepusher.

If you mean this to be sincere, thank you and be well too. Happy debating!

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 34 by WinePusher]

I notice you did not comment on whether or not I actually SLANDERED you. Interesting, that.

That said -- and since I don't bother to defend words stuffed into my mouth -- like I said: Be well.

[WinePusher]

I notice you did not comment on whether or not I actually SLANDERED you. Interesting, that.

Of course I did, you just missed it. And btw, I notice you did not comment on my post 21 or my post 34. Interesting, that.

That said -- and since I don't bother to defend words stuffed into my mouth -- like I said: Be well.

I didn't stuff any words in your mouth and I have no interest in stuffing words in your mouth. Like I said: Be well.

[Danmark]

Moderator Action

In lieu of continuing to give warnings, the thread is now locked since it's focus is increasingly about the participants rather than the argument.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.