Saturday, March 27, 2010

Chris Martenson - Crash Course

Chris Martenson put this series of videos together to connect the coming collapse of our monetary system, peak oil, and our environmental challenges. It is very educational, very interesting, and is a MUST watch for anyone that wishes to understand better the turmoil we are living through now and will live through in the near future. So if you have a rainy afternoon and wish to kill a couple of hours, I recommend clicking this link and educate yourself.

Here's Part 1:



The risk of not understanding the coming lowering the standard of living we will all suffer through due to these three variables is large. Not only for our own preparation, but because in times of crisis, our governments will use the crisis to push through policies we would otherwise reject.

77 comments:

Chris said...

This guy is a retard. Allowing the corps to go to China to pay slave wages is the #1 reason "the world is changing". That is a fact. A fact he dances around with vacuous rhetoric and "belief".

Furlong said...

Yea, it has nothing to do with exponential growth of population, money supply...depletion of food stocks, energy supplies, and natural resources.

If only the US had more protectionist policies forcing manufacturers to stay in the US and for up the price of cars for Americans (or put the car companies out of business)! Everything would be just swell then.

Christopher Furlong: said...

No, sorry, families could afford cars well before that, before Henry fucking Ford decided to pay them a fucking fair wage.

It's pretty easy, Josh. The car companies can't go out of business if they have no cheap foreign competitors. It is simple: don't let the cheap imports in. Only trade with those countries with comparable wages and salary.

Furlong said...

"No, sorry, families could afford cars well before that, before Henry fucking Ford decided to pay them a fucking fair wage."

Henry fucking Ford revolutionized the production of cars and innovated a manner in which he could build cars cheap enough to sell them to the middle class.

Let's remember, Ford was EXTREMELY anti-union. He was a dirty, selfish capitalist...that increased his workers' wage from 2.83 per 9-hour day to $5.00 per 8-hour day in 1914. Now, did he do this because he was such a nice guy?

No.

He did it because it was in his interest. He didn't sacrifice profits to increase wages, he gained profits by increasing wages.

Increasing wages allowed him to trim down his human resources department as turn-over in employment dropped from being a large problem to being so insignificant he stopped measuring it. That, plus he was paying high enough to keep the best employees.

Ford is a perfect example of the labour markets working.

Furlong said...

"It's pretty easy, Josh. The car companies can't go out of business if they have no cheap foreign competitors. It is simple: don't let the cheap imports in."

That you think its that simple is exactly why you're a moron.

If foreign companies who can build cars cheaper are not allowed to sell cars in the US, then the only cars Americans will be able to buy are more expensive, lower quality domestic automobiles.

SO what you're saying is that, I should be forced to spend 25k on a Ford Focus that will fall apart in five years as opposed to 22k on a Honda Civic that will still be running great for 11 years in order to support union workers who make twice my earnings, even when there's no work for them to perform.

The first problem with this scenario is that because I can't buy the cheaper car, automatically i'm $3k poorer than I otherwise would've been. So there's $3k just from me that could have been saved, invested, or spent on other products, creating other more productive jobs.

The second problem is that, the entire country will now be driving cars that do not last as long and cost more to maintain. So not only will I be out the $3k from the initial purchase, I will be out additional maintenance cost, and I will have to purchase a new car twice as soon.

The Civic vs. Focus example is perfect for this situation because right now they're relatively priced the same, but Dad only got 5 or 6 years out of his focus...my Honda Civic is 11 years old and running mint. Given the protectionist policies you're talking about, no doubt the cost of the Focus would jump to support the high domestic union wages, and just because the oligopoly of Ford, GM, and Chrysler would now have over the NA Auto market, they would be able to increase prices all they wanted because there would be no more foreign competition forcing the prices on their junk down.

So no Chris. Its not that Simple. You're a moron.

Sheldon Furlong said...

"The second problem is that, the entire country will now be driving cars that do not last as long and cost more to maintain."

There is the problem. You should not have paid more. If the car is unreliable the manufacturer should be mandated by law to fix the vehicle and supply replacement vehicles while it is being repaired. Cars should have a 10 year warrenty on everything.

Car companies, all of them, are allowed off scott free over and over again when design flaws cause undue repairs. There are problems with all vehicles.

These cars should be built to last 10 years. Should not be more expensive because of this. The obsene wealth being accumulated at the top of these companies should be funnelled back into the company to keep costs down not allow corporate trappings!

Quality of life for the employees and a reasonable share of the wealth will encourage better made goods, lower costs through innovation.

The success of a company should no longer be measured on shareholder value but on quality of life distribution. The operation of a company should be measured on the longevity of thier goods and a relativley even distribution of the wealth throughout the organization.

The closer the top managers incomes match the employee avaerage the more successfull the organization should be considered.

Chris said...

I totally agree Dad, but that scenario can only happen if there are regulations as to where a corporation can produce. I am all for Toyota producing cars in Canada and the United. If they can do it cheaper, good for them. But when you destroy jobs and the average wage because you want cheap products built by slaves, sorry, I feel no sympathy for your position.

"If foreign companies who can build cars cheaper are not allowed to sell cars in the US, then the only cars Americans will be able to buy are more expensive, lower quality domestic automobiles."

You are not thinking. I said corporations could not go to other countries to pay lower wages. I didn't say anything about foreign companies that are willing to pay fair wages by producing their product in the country they are going to sell it in. That is different.

"
SO what you're saying is that, I should be forced to spend 25k on a Ford Focus that will fall apart in five years as opposed to 22k on a Honda Civic that will still be running great for 11 years in order to support union workers who make twice my earnings, even when there's no work for them to perform."

Not at all. If Toyota is making cars in factories in the United States and paying a fair wage to employees to have them made, I am all for it. However, if they are forcing wage slaves in China to make them and then exporting them to the United States, I have huge fucking problem with that.

Nope, you aren't reading. The workers paid in Toyota plants are not slaves.

Furlong said...

"There is the problem. You should not have paid more. If the car is unreliable the manufacturer should be mandated by law to fix the vehicle and supply replacement vehicles while it is being repaired. Cars should have a 10 year warrenty on everything."

I'm sorry, but this is just irrational grumblings of a pissed off ex-Ford owner. When you purchase a car, you are told up front what kind of guarantee you are given, its up to you to decide what its worth. You think Ford will sell cars in Canada if the government mandates a 10 year warranty? Do you think Honda or Toyota would? Prices would jump, fewer people would own cars; the auto sector of our economy would take a big hit everywhere. Car dealerships would hurt, mechanics would hurt, parts suppliers would hurt. What you are talking about would require a a complete nationalization of the auto-market (because no private investors would invest in such a market) that would drive up costs and be nothing but a burden on society helping noone. I told you to by a Civic, but nooooo you bought the Focus.

Furlong said...

"Car companies, all of them, are allowed off scott free over and over again when design flaws cause undue repairs. There are problems with all vehicles."

Stop buying poorly designed vehicles! Read consumer reports!

Furlong said...

"These cars should be built to last 10 years. Should not be more expensive because of this. "

And I shouldn't have to work. My needs and wants should all be provided to me simply because I'm alive. What? This is the real world? OH RIGHT! Sometimes I wish I could have my cake and eat it too old man.

Furlong said...

"The obsene wealth being accumulated at the top of these companies should be funnelled back into the company to keep costs down not allow corporate trappings!"

Yes those evil rich capitalists running Honda and Toyota! How dare they reinvest their earned billions of dollars over the past 30 years to develop a method of manufacturing a high-quality product at low cost on a large scale to earn more money! HOW DARE THEY!

Jesus. Never realized how much of a socialist you are. I'm sorry...how much of cash you make from your vegetables do you donate? Whats that you say? You use it to your own benefit and expand your garden? YOU CAPITALIST BASTARD!

Furlong said...

*Just as a side note, your garden is a perfect example of how capitalism helps the community. You're growing and distribution of locally grown, organic vegetables provides some with an alternative source of food at an affordable price that would not have otherwise been there, and you profit some at the same time. If you ever get large enough, just wait for the heavy hand of government to come down on you.

Furlong said...

"Quality of life for the employees and a reasonable share of the wealth will encourage better made goods, lower costs through innovation."

And yet Honda and Toyota can make higher quality products without unions in their plants forcing higher wages and beneftis....hmmmm...

Furlong said...

"The success of a company should no longer be measured on shareholder value but on quality of life distribution. The operation of a company should be measured on the longevity of thier goods and a relativley even distribution of the wealth throughout the organization."

Of course, shareholder value is a function of quality of life distribution, longevity of goods, and an efficient business model with appropriate compensation to higher a talented pool of labour. Soooooo ya.

Furlong said...

"The closer the top managers incomes match the employee avaerage the more successfull the organization should be considered."

I suppose that makes sense...unless of course the guy you want to run your company can get paid 10 times as much at a company that doesn't follow that model, and he is motivate by money. The income gap between execs and their workers has been growing exponentially over the past 100 years......what happened 100 years ago? The Fed. Endless credit has caused a boom in the labour market for high level execs and is the cause of this imbalance. Of course, thats not the cause of someone making less money looking at someone else making more money with jealousy. Thats just human nature. The gap could be have as large as it is today, and people would still complain about the evil capitalists.

Furlong said...

Of course, also keep in mind, the average annual salary of an individual in Washington, D.C. is well about 100k. Do you think its much different in Ottawa? Whats more absurd, and executive who is responsible for the employment of 16,000 people and the management of a successful corporation earning $1 million dollars, or that billions of dollars are being fed into the pockets of lobbyists and politicians to buy our government?

Furlong said...

"I totally agree Dad"

Of course you do. You understand less about economics than Dad does.

"But when you destroy jobs and the average wage because you want cheap products built by slaves"

I don't consider a Chinese individual who chooses to leave his lower wages at home to travel thousands of miles away to work in a factory elsewhere in China for higher wages anymore of a slave than the individual that immigrated to the US a century ago and Cape Bretoners that move out west to work in the oil fields. They obviously had a choice and they made it. A slave doesn't have a choice.

Furlong said...

"You are not thinking. I said corporations could not go to other countries to pay lower wages. I didn't say anything about foreign companies that are willing to pay fair wages by producing their product in the country they are going to sell it in. That is different."

You are not thinking. It is the same thing. You are talking about forcing the company to increase costs by moving their manufacturing to a domestic location. This will increase costs to everyone.

When RIM was determining where to build the office I work in, it was between between Calgary and Halifax. They chose Halifax because of substantial subsidies the Nova Scotia government gave them. Without those subsidies, it would have been more cost effective to build the office in Calgary despite higher costs of real estate and labour. Why? Because the Nova Scotia government taxes business more than any other province in the country.

If the US wants manufacturing to come back to their country, they need to make it more business friendly.

Furlong said...

"Nope, you aren't reading. The workers paid in Toyota plants are not slaves."

Right, but you are talking about forcing these companies to move ALL of their manufacturing into the US, or the market they wish to sell. The complete opposite of what the auto industry has had to do to survive.

I didn't realize you had so much in common with Reagan.

Sheldon Furlong said...

Are you having a good day?

Furlong said...

I didn't appreciate the irrationality of your comment. You don't typically sound so impossibly idealistic when talking about reality.

Furlong said...

By the way, why should the government regulate a an automobile must be warrantied for 10 years? Why not 15? 20? 25 years? I'd sure like my car to be warrantied for 25 for free, just like I love my free health care I pay hundreds of dollars every month to enjoy. Why the arbitrary enforcement of 10 years? Also, why doesn't the government force manufacturers of all products to warranty them for some arbitrary amount of time that suits your irrational perspective?

Sheldon Furlong said...

Of course what I am saying is purely unreasonable in todays world. It would require us to turn our values upside down. It would require compassion to become the first instinct not personal consumption or greed. This paradigm shift of thought is unlikely in my time or even yours. sadly.

You missed my point totally. The problem is not with Ford vs Honda. They all exist in the same world making products of dubious quality with shareholder value the holy grail.

I am not against those who innovate and risk having success and having a reward but name one of these individuals who do not rely on the availability of cheap natural resources to maximize their profits. Using cheap water, air or other natural resources to accumulate wealth imperils the future generations quality of life.

If I could get rich growing vegetables I would hope those who helped me would also reap a suitable benefit as no one does it alone. But if my only concern is shareholder value, no fair distribution of wealth will take a back seat everytime.

Furlong said...

"Of course what I am saying is purely unreasonable in todays world. It would require us to turn our values upside down. It would require compassion to become the first instinct not personal consumption or greed. This paradigm shift of thought is unlikely in my time or even yours. sadly."

Depends. I understand that some corporations build obsolescence into their products, but that has only worked because of imbalance created by the monetary system. The US dollar and its dominance in the world has allowed our society to become overly wasteful. Even if stuff doesn't break down, we expect to always buy newer and better, and we throw out the old. This kind of waste would not exist in a society where we had a stable measure of value (currency backed by precious metals) and stable, steadily growing economy.

Furlong said...

"You missed my point totally. The problem is not with Ford vs Honda. They all exist in the same world making products of dubious quality with shareholder value the holy grail."

What is shareholder value the product of? I don't support the argument that companies purposefully use the cheapest labour and the cheapest materials to build the cheapest products to support the share value. I believe dying companies resort to this type of strategy to stay alive, but it typically fails them (GM). Successful companies do not work this way.

"I am not against those who innovate and risk having success and having a reward but name one of these individuals who do not rely on the availability of cheap natural resources to maximize their profits. Using cheap water, air or other natural resources to accumulate wealth imperils the future generations quality of life."

So does 90% of everything you do day-by-day. But that's a discussion for another day. Did you watch Chris Martenson's crash course?

"If I could get rich growing vegetables I would hope those who helped me would also reap a suitable benefit as no one does it alone. But if my only concern is shareholder value, no fair distribution of wealth will take a back seat everytime."

In your case, if you ever hire help, the share of profits enjoyed by your employee will be mutually determined at the time of hiring, and any further distribution of profits to that employee will be your decision to make. What factors do you believe will be taken into account when making that decision? Your annuals returns on your investment. Your profit margin. Your income. In the end, you are the sole shareholder, and you are only going to balance your own and the employees compensation between what is fair and what is manageable. You will do your best, but in the end, you will be the evil capitalist you and Chris love to bad mouth.

The question ends up being..What is fair?

Fair is an agreement.

Was the price I bought my house fair? Yes. Because the seller and I agree to a price that was acceptable to both of us. Wages work the same way.

Sheldon Furlong said...

"Was the price I bought my house fair? Yes. Because the seller and I agree to a price that was acceptable to both of us. Wages work the same way."

Because you agree to something does not mean it is fair. You bought a house because you wanted one and found one you could afford. Your choice is either pay the unfair price or not buy a house. Then justify it by saying you would not have done it if it was not fair.

Being responsible for operating a company of any size means that the first order of business is sustainability. To create enough revenue to ensure day to day costs are covered and enough is put aside for future planning and contingency. If after all of that there is unusual profit experienced then it should be shared substantially with all involved.

The windfall should not be for the benefit of me to build a 40000 ft house or buy a 10 million dollar yacht or fly a "corporate jet".

We have reached a stage where so much wealth is concentrated in such a small portion of the people it is very unhealthy.

Chris said...

"And yet Honda and Toyota can make higher quality products without unions in their plants forcing higher wages and beneftis....hmmmm..."

This is what I mean by lying to yourself, Josh. I have made the point, over and over, which you have ignored, that the wages of the Toyota employees would not be so high if the American plants were not unionized. It is the unionization of vast sections of the workforce that forced Toyota to pay higher wages. Nothing else.

Chris said...

"You think Ford will sell cars in Canada if the government mandates a 10 year warranty? Do you think Honda or Toyota would? Prices would jump, fewer people would own cars; the auto sector of our economy would take a big hit everywhere."

Yes, of course they would. Yes, prices would jump. But then the law of profits would kick in: in short, in order to make profits, they would have to sell cars a small profit margin, like they were selling all during the Ford era. It worked, there is no reason to think it wouldn't continue to work, the company would just make less.

"Stop buying poorly designed vehicles! Read consumer reports!"

Josh thinks buying a car is like buying a pack of bubble gum! You can just choose and then choose again and then choose again! WRONG. Cars are fucking expensive. You simply can't choose to buy one and then have it turn out to be a piece of shit and the company a piece of shit. YUP, there should be consumer protections. Don't let them "free" market evangelists convince you otherwise!

Chris said...

"And I shouldn't have to work. My needs and wants should all be provided to me simply because I'm alive. What? This is the real world? OH RIGHT! Sometimes I wish I could have my cake and eat it too old man."

No, we should mandate that factories must make products that last. Again, they would still make a profit, although less. This is no big deal, because these corporations are pulling in billions.

"Depends. I understand that some corporations build obsolescence into their products, but that has only worked because of imbalance created by the monetary system. The US dollar and its dominance in the world has allowed our society to become overly wasteful."

Pish-posh. It is a time-tested strategy for assuring that consumers will buy their product again. It has nothing to do with resources. The same strategy will be employed and has been employed in scarce economies.


"Even if stuff doesn't break down, we expect to always buy newer and better, and we throw out the old. This kind of waste would not exist in a society where we had a stable measure of value (currency backed by precious metals) and stable, steadily growing economy."

This is what is known as changing the subject, Josh. You were beaten on this point. Concede it or get labeled a liar to yourself.

Chris said...

"Yes those evil rich capitalists running Honda and Toyota! How dare they reinvest their earned billions of dollars over the past 30 years to develop a method of manufacturing a high-quality product at low cost on a large scale to earn more money! HOW DARE THEY!"

I have no problem with Toyota. They pay fair wages in the country they want to sell cars in. It is a good system.

"I suppose that makes sense...unless of course the guy you want to run your company can get paid 10 times as much at a company that doesn't follow that model, and he is motivate by money. The income gap between execs and their workers has been growing exponentially over the past 100 years......what happened 100 years ago?"

WRONG. It has been growing exponentially since Reagan. What happened during Reagan? A serious curing of union power. Before Reagan the pay of CEOs in comparison to employees was still reasonable. It is the process of "downsizing" when CEOs started to be paid outrageous sums. Why were they paid those sums? Because they were expected to bust the unions.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931748,00.html

As you can see, the increase in CEO pays has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FED.

http://www.workers.org/2005/us/mimimum-wage-0324/

"Whats more absurd, and executive who is responsible for the employment of 16,000 people and the management of a successful corporation earning $1 million dollars, or that billions of dollars are being fed into the pockets of lobbyists and politicians to buy our government?"

The CEO making a million dollars, of course.

Chris said...

"I don't consider a Chinese individual who chooses to leave his lower wages at home to travel thousands of miles away to work in a factory elsewhere in China for higher wages anymore of a slave than the individual that immigrated to the US a century ago and Cape Bretoners that move out west to work in the oil fields. They obviously had a choice and they made it. A slave doesn't have a choice."


Again, the Chinese have an average PPP of 5500 USD. So, if it is a choice, it isn't much of a choice. :)

"You are not thinking. It is the same thing. You are talking about forcing the company to increase costs by moving their manufacturing to a domestic location. This will increase costs to everyone. "

But I thought you said Toyota makes a cheaper, superior car? Have you contradicted yourself?

"
When RIM was determining where to build the office I work in, it was between between Calgary and Halifax. They chose Halifax because of substantial subsidies the Nova Scotia government gave them. Without those subsidies, it would have been more cost effective to build the office in Calgary despite higher costs of real estate and labour. Why? Because the Nova Scotia government taxes business more than any other province in the country.

If the US wants manufacturing to come back to their country, they need to make it more business friendly."

This is all based on the assumption that corporations have the right to prance around the globe paying slave wages. If we were to make a law that they didnt have this right, they wouldnt be able to sell in America anymore, then they would have to come back home, hire Americans again, pay Americans wages again, and make money here. That is what the FTA and NAFTA were all about, Josh. Making it global corporation prancing a right of law. IT SHOULD BE REPEALED> THE CULT OF THE CHEAP SHOULD BE ENDED>

"Right, but you are talking about forcing these companies to move ALL of their manufacturing into the US, or the market they wish to sell. The complete opposite of what the auto industry has had to do to survive.

I didn't realize you had so much in common with Reagan."

Yes, yes I am talking about forcing them. Corporations are not people. They do not have rights. They are, in essence, exploitative tyrannies that must be regulated to curb their excesses. The current mess is the result of letting them prance around the world demanding slave wages. The bubble you are so concerned with is troubling for this reason, because it has hidden the full impact of millions of jobs shipped to China until now.

Reagan was a conservative operating in political climate with a strong left, so, yes, I seek to return us to "Reagan", not your shitty cotton candy "here's a meal, capitalism is great!" ideal.

Chris said...

"By the way, why should the government regulate a an automobile must be warrantied for 10 years? Why not 15? 20? 25 years? I'd sure like my car to be warrantied for 25 for free, just like I love my free health care I pay hundreds of dollars every month to enjoy. Why the arbitrary enforcement of 10 years? Also, why doesn't the government force manufacturers of all products to warranty them for some arbitrary amount of time that suits your irrational perspective?"

It is not arbitrary, Josh. It is based on the amount of money spent. If I spent 20,000 on a car and got a steaming pile of shit, i would be pretty unfuckinghappy. I would feel Ford had wasted 20,000 of my dollars. A ten year warranty would eliminate this problem and still allow Ford to make a profit. You see, the problem here is that your philosophy is so divorced from reality that you have a hard time making the obvious conclusion. But so it is when you think "profits over people"!

Chris said...

"This kind of waste would not exist in a society where we had a stable measure of value (currency backed by precious metals) and stable, steadily growing economy."

Garbage. The factory allows for the massive, quick production of crappy products on a global level with or without the gold standard. The early years of capitalism are proof of this.

"What is shareholder value the product of? I don't support the argument that companies purposefully use the cheapest labour and the cheapest materials to build the cheapest products to support the share value. I believe dying companies resort to this type of strategy to stay alive, but it typically fails them (GM). Successful companies do not work this way."

Lol, the scores of companies pay slave wages in China are not "dying companies", Josh. Give you head a shake.

"Fair is an agreement."

Fair is a political struggle.

Chris said...

"Was the price I bought my house fair? Yes. Because the seller and I agree to a price that was acceptable to both of us. Wages work the same way."

Because you agree to something does not mean it is fair. You bought a house because you wanted one and found one you could afford. Your choice is either pay the unfair price or not buy a house. Then justify it by saying you would not have done it if it was not fair.

Being responsible for operating a company of any size means that the first order of business is sustainability. To create enough revenue to ensure day to day costs are covered and enough is put aside for future planning and contingency. If after all of that there is unusual profit experienced then it should be shared substantially with all involved.

The windfall should not be for the benefit of me to build a 40000 ft house or buy a 10 million dollar yacht or fly a "corporate jet".

We have reached a stage where so much wealth is concentrated in such a small portion of the people it is very unhealthy."

Well said. Have you read the American constitution or any writings of a man named Thomas Jefferson? I think he would have agreed with you if were alive today.

Furlong said...

"Because you agree to something does not mean it is fair. You bought a house because you wanted one and found one you could afford. Your choice is either pay the unfair price or not buy a house. Then justify it by saying you would not have done it if it was not fair."

So what makes the price "unfair"?

"
Being responsible for operating a company of any size means that the first order of business is sustainability. To create enough revenue to ensure day to day costs are covered and enough is put aside for future planning and contingency. If after all of that there is unusual profit experienced then it should be shared substantially with all involved.

The windfall should not be for the benefit of me to build a 40000 ft house or buy a 10 million dollar yacht or fly a "corporate jet"."

So who decides how much? Who comes up with that arbitrary percentage amount of profits that should be distributed to the work force? How does one decide how much profit is too much? What gives the government the right to violently force corporations to distribute that arbitrary amount of profits? How is this mandate from the government going to encourage new business providing productive work to our citizens? When are you going to dig your head out of your idealogical pile of sand you are hiding it in?

"We have reached a stage where so much wealth is concentrated in such a small portion of the people it is very unhealthy."

Agreed...an unfortunate result of central banking.

Furlong said...

"This is what I mean by lying to yourself, Josh. I have made the point, over and over, which you have ignored, that the wages of the Toyota employees would not be so high if the American plants were not unionized. It is the unionization of vast sections of the workforce that forced Toyota to pay higher wages. Nothing else."

This is what I mean by lying to yourself Chris. You have asserted, over and over, that the wages of everyone else benefit from unionization. That it is the vast sections of the workforce that forces everyone else to pay higher wages. And yet, you offer no evidence for this assertion. When Henry Ford doubled workers wages, was it because of union pressure? No. Was Dad paid a reasonable wage all of his life because he could get better wages working in a unionized environment else where? No. How about Grampy? No. Could I go elsewhere for higher wages in a Unionized environment? No. In fact, I'm screwed if RIM ever shutdown in Halifax. They could pay me less and I'd probably still work there. As well, anywhere in our economy where there is trouble, costs are increasing unsustainably, and there are threats of bankruptcy...Unions always seem to be there. Education, Health Care, Governments...all have unionized workers and all are suffering from cost increases much faster than inflation. The unions at GM brought GM to the brink of bankruptcy, yet Honda and Toyota seemed to survive the infamous "double whammy" just fine.

Toyota and Honda pay the wages they pay in the US because 1. they are forced to be there and 2. they realize a quality workforce deserves a wage that can be lived on.

Stop lying to yourself.

Furlong said...

"Yes, of course they would. Yes, prices would jump. But then the law of profits would kick in: in short, in order to make profits, they would have to sell cars a small profit margin, like they were selling all during the Ford era. It worked, there is no reason to think it wouldn't continue to work, the company would just make less."

Ah, yes, put the screws to the consumer.

I'd love to see a government who is able to come up with the perfect, arbitrary profit margin a company is allowed to earn. lol.

Furlong said...

"Josh thinks buying a car is like buying a pack of bubble gum! You can just choose and then choose again and then choose again! WRONG. Cars are fucking expensive. You simply can't choose to buy one and then have it turn out to be a piece of shit and the company a piece of shit."

All the more reason to perform your due diligence. People who purchase Fords & GMs no damn well they have a lower reputation for quality, but they decide to buy them because they're cheaper. We all make our own decisions and suffer the appropriate consequences.

Furlong said...

"No, we should mandate that factories must make products that last. Again, they would still make a profit, although less. This is no big deal, because these corporations are pulling in billions."

And they're spending billions. I would love to see a government bureaucrat decide the arbitrary amount of time a product's function should continue function, and then see all of the capital investment in world flock to that country to provide jobs for the people....lol....

Chris said...

"So who decides how much? Who comes up with that arbitrary percentage amount of profits that should be distributed to the work force? How does one decide how much profit is too much? What gives the government the right to violently force corporations to distribute that arbitrary amount of profits?"

The poverty line, of course. A health income comfortably above the poverty line is fair.

Furlong said...

"This is what is known as changing the subject, Josh. You were beaten on this point. Concede it or get labeled a liar to yourself."

The problem is that you do not understand that its all the same subject. Planned obsolescence only occurs because consumers can afford it. And planned obsolescense is a strategy that only evolved after the creation of the federal reserve. In a society of extremely limited resources, and a currency backed by gold, consumers would be more responsive and would not be able to afford to purchase junk.

Furlong said...

"WRONG. It has been growing exponentially since Reagan. What happened during Reagan? A serious curing of union power. Before Reagan the pay of CEOs in comparison to employees was still reasonable. It is the process of "downsizing" when CEOs started to be paid outrageous sums. Why were they paid those sums? Because they were expected to bust the unions."

True, you do not see substantial increase in the incomes of the top 0.01% until after Reagan, but the largest increase took place during the tech and housing bubbles caused by the Fed.

"During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s"

What happened in the 1970s? Oh right...Nixon took the US off of the gold standard.

"The CEO making a million dollars, of course."

Yea I can see why the CEO getting paid millions of dollars is more absurd than fascism *rolling eyes*.

Chris said...

"This is what I mean by lying to yourself Chris. You have asserted, over and over, that the wages of everyone else benefit from unionization. That it is the vast sections of the workforce that forces everyone else to pay higher wages."

Sure, if I am a worker, and the other companies are paying union wages, which company do you think I am going to get hired on with? That's right, the union company. This means that those companies not paying union wages have to COMPETE for competent labor. This means they have to increase their wages to compete. It is basic, economics 101. Josh.


"When Henry Ford doubled workers wages, was it because of union pressure?"

Yes and no. Ford hated the unions. Ford resisted them for years. But someone, in the context of violent strike actions, realized that paying workers to buy their products was good for everyone. CONTEXT.

"Was Dad paid a reasonable wage all of his life because he could get better wages working in a unionized environment else where?"

Yes, that is right. The average wage/salary is directly the result of the competition between companies for labor.


"How about Grampy? No."

Grampy was a carpenter. Carpentry is part of one of the most unionized industries in North America, so, yeah, his wages/contracts were directly influenced by unionized competition.

"Could I go elsewhere for higher wages in a Unionized environment? No."

Sure you could.

"In fact, I'm screwed if RIM ever shutdown in Halifax. They could pay me less and I'd probably still work there."

What a great argument!

"As well, anywhere in our economy where there is trouble, costs are increasing unsustainably, and there are threats of bankruptcy...Unions always seem to be there."

There is threat of bankruptcy because some retarded free market evangelist decided to gut the consumer class. His idea that paying lower wages and make short-term profits is better destroyed the working class and its consumption ability. Since the Chinese are paid shit wages, they have not replaced this class and everyone has been fucked over as a result. Good job, free market evangelists!

"Education, Health Care, Governments...all have unionized workers and all are suffering from cost increases much faster than inflation.Z"

But only because the jobs have been moved to China and the bubble has finally burst to show the full effects.

"The unions at GM brought GM to the brink of bankruptcy, yet Honda and Toyota seemed to survive the infamous "double whammy" just fine."

Are you sure about that? LOL, Toyota had huge problems during the double whammy, Josh. Moreover, they didn't suffer a "double whammy". They suffered from the recession only. The American companies suffered because they were invested in BIG TRUCKS> Big trucks + oil crisis = one whammy. Recession + oil crisis = double whammy. The BIG TRUCK strategy HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNIONS, JOSH.

"Toyota and Honda pay the wages they pay in the US because 1. they are forced to be there and 2. they realize a quality workforce deserves a wage that can be lived on."

Maybe. The Japanese do have a very high PPP, but ONLY in the context of violent unions. The Japanese corps have moved to China as well, Josh. Don't kid yourself.

Stop lying to yourself.

Chris said...

"Ah, yes, put the screws to the consumer."

No, sorry, there is a limit there. After that limit people will simply stop buying cars and more extensive public transport will be instituted. Therefore, the corps would have to settle for a smaller, yet still lucrative profit margin. This sounds, roughly, like Dad's point.

"I'd love to see a government who is able to come up with the perfect, arbitrary profit margin a company is allowed to earn. lol."

?? It would be decided by the free market within the United States.

"All the more reason to perform your due diligence. People who purchase Fords & GMs no damn well they have a lower reputation for quality, but they decide to buy them because they're cheaper. We all make our own decisions and suffer the appropriate consequences."

Sorry, Josh, companies do not have the right to make pieces of shit and profit from them. If a company can't do so, then it SHOULD be regulated. A 10-year warranty makes sense.

"And they're spending billions. I would love to see a government bureaucrat decide the arbitrary amount of time a product's function should continue function, and then see all of the capital investment in world flock to that country to provide jobs for the people....lol...."

Horrible. They are spending billions and making billions in profits. The two are different.

Furlong said...

"Again, the Chinese have an average PPP of 5500 USD. So, if it is a choice, it isn't much of a choice. :)"

Thats not an argument.

"But I thought you said Toyota makes a cheaper, superior car? Have you contradicted yourself?"

Please provide the contradictory statements as I'm sure you're taking them out of context.

"This is all based on the assumption that corporations have the right to prance around the globe paying slave wages. If we were to make a law that they didnt have this right, they wouldnt be able to sell in America anymore, then they would have to come back home, hire Americans again, pay Americans wages again, and make money here. That is what the FTA and NAFTA were all about, Josh. Making it global corporation prancing a right of law. IT SHOULD BE REPEALED> THE CULT OF THE CHEAP SHOULD BE ENDED>"

Yea, if I want to manufacture a product, why should I get to decide where to manufacture it?

"Yes, yes I am talking about forcing them. Corporations are not people. They do not have rights."

Who owns the corporation? People. And these people have invested their capital into the corporation. These people have rights. Being rich does not mean you have less right and being poor does not mean you have more rights.

"It is not arbitrary, Josh. It is based on the amount of money spent. If I spent 20,000 on a car and got a steaming pile of shit, i would be pretty unfuckinghappy. I would feel Ford had wasted 20,000 of my dollars. A ten year warranty would eliminate this problem and still allow Ford to make a profit. You see, the problem here is that your philosophy is so divorced from reality that you have a hard time making the obvious conclusion. But so it is when you think "profits over people"!"

Actually, I'm completely in line with reality. If Ford could sell a 10 year warranty profitably, they would. That is reality.

"Garbage. The factory allows for the massive, quick production of crappy products on a global level with or without the gold standard. The early years of capitalism are proof of this."

Are you arguing that in 1860 we were just as wasteful as we are today?

"Lol, the scores of companies pay slave wages in China are not "dying companies", Josh. Give you head a shake."

Yes they are, because soon, the west will not be able to afford the products that are produced there. If they aren't a dying breeds, it will only be because they are able to stay profitable elsewhere.

A political struggle is fair? Are you on crack? Fair is what is agreed upon.

Furlong said...

"Your choice is either pay the unfair price or not buy a house."

I disagree. If the price was unfair I wouldn't have bought the house.

"Well said. Have you read the American constitution or any writings of a man named Thomas Jefferson? I think he would have agreed with you if were alive today."

Yep, and he would be actively promoting the end of the federal reserve to solve the problem.

Chris said...

"The problem is that you do not understand that its all the same subject. Planned obsolescence only occurs because consumers can afford it. And planned obsolescense is a strategy that only evolved after the creation of the federal reserve. In a society of extremely limited resources, and a currency backed by gold, consumers would be more responsive and would not be able to afford to purchase junk."

The problem here is that you do not understand the concept of factory. In a resource rich economy backed by a gold standard, planned obsolescence would still occur, because factories can produce much, much more than is needed. This truth extends to all economies expect the most extremely resource-poor. But good thing we don't really have to worry about those, eh!

"
True, you do not see substantial increase in the incomes of the top 0.01% until after Reagan, but the largest increase took place during the tech and housing bubbles caused by the Fed."

Doesn't matter. Those increases are after the fact of Reagan changing the system and CEOs being hired to bust unions by "downsizing". The bubbles happened AFTER>>>>

"What happened in the 1970s? Oh right...Nixon took the US off of the gold standard."

Nothing happened in the 70s. As you already stated, most of the increases didn't happen until after Reagan. At best, the neo-con movement was slowly gaining steam in the 70s and this resulted in some cynical increases.

"
Yea I can see why the CEO getting paid millions of dollars is more absurd than fascism *rolling eyes*."

Fascism = Violent nationalism + totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism = total government control

Authoritarianism = centralized, non-democratic control of government

Social democracy = socialization of parts of the economy.


Therefore, you use of the word "fascism" was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Glen Beck wrong.

Chris said...

"Thats not an argument."

You are right: It is a reality.

"I disagree. If the price was unfair I wouldn't have bought the house."

And lived in a hut, apparently.

"Yep, and he would be actively promoting the end of the federal reserve to solve the problem."

As if the corporations couldn't pay those outrageous salaries in gold *rolls eyes*.

"Yea, if I want to manufacture a product, why should I get to decide where to manufacture it?"

You can manufacture it where ever you want, but you don't have the right to sell it in our country if you don't make it in our country. ;)

"Who owns the corporation? People. And these people have invested their capital into the corporation. These people have rights. Being rich does not mean you have less right and being poor does not mean you have more rights. "

Those people have rights, but their corporation does not. Their corporation is not a person.

"Actually, I'm completely in line with reality. If Ford could sell a 10 year warranty profitably, they would. That is reality."

They did, for many decades. But then something changed? Market evangelism made them greedy.

"Are you arguing that in 1860 we were just as wasteful as we are today?"

I'm arguing that our wastefulness has nothing to do with the federal reserve, and everything to do with the incredible production ability of modern factories and, of course, the slave wages paid to Chinese and Mexican workers.

"es they are, because soon, the west will not be able to afford the products that are produced there. If they aren't a dying breeds, it will only be because they are able to stay profitable elsewhere.

"es they are, because soon, the west will not be able to afford the products that are produced there. If they aren't a dying breeds, it will only be because they are able to stay profitable elsewhere."

Then all corporations are obsolete. Fuck, the Chinese are never going to get above 7000 PPP per year!

"A political struggle is fair? Are you on crack? Fair is what is agreed upon."

I'm glad you agree with the principles of a worker's revolution.

Furlong said...

"The poverty line, of course. A health income comfortably above the poverty line is fair."

How is the poverty line determined? How much above the poverty line?

Furlong said...

"Sure, if I am a worker, and the other companies are paying union wages, which company do you think I am going to get hired on with? That's right, the union company. This means that those companies not paying union wages have to COMPETE for competent labor. This means they have to increase their wages to compete. It is basic, economics 101. Josh."

I'd like to find the worker that has this choice to make.

Poly Cello had a choice to unionize to get "higher wages"..and they have on multiple occasions chosen NO.

Chris said...

"How is the poverty line determined? "

Don't ask stupid questions, Josh."

"I'd like to find the worker that has this choice to make."

Are you implying that unionized industries do not hire new employees? Are you implying that when vast parts of the economy were unionized that this did not happen?

"Poly Cello had a choice to unionize to get "higher wages"..and they have on multiple occasions chosen NO."

I'm sorry, does Poly Cello exist in an economy without unions? No? Then it doesn't freaking matter if they say no or yes to unions. Their wages are still based, on the thousands of economics competitive actions that happen daily, on the high wages that unions drove up and maintain.

Poly Cello had a choice to unionize to get "higher wages"..and they have on multiple occasions chosen NO.

Furlong said...

"Grampy was a carpenter. Carpentry is part of one of the most unionized industries in North America, so, yeah, his wages/contracts were directly influenced by unionized competition."

Grampy was not part of a union, he worked in a free market and undercut his competitors a lot to ensure he had work year round (at least this is what Grampy explained to me).

"Sure you could. "

I'd like to know where, cause I'd go there right now.

"What a great argument!"

Yep. It is. It demonstrates that there is no alternative union employment opportunities pushing up wages.

"Sorry, Josh, companies do not have the right to make pieces of shit and profit from them. If a company can't do so, then it SHOULD be regulated. A 10-year warranty makes sense."

I'm sorry Chris. I completely have the right to sell someone a bag of burning shit for $10,000 if they are willing to purchase it.

"This truth extends to all economies expect the most extremely resource-poor. But good thing we don't really have to worry about those, eh!"

The problem here Chris is that we've been living in an extraordinary age where Oil is treated as if it is unlimited. Because Oil is bought and sold in US dollars, it has been severly subsidized for the West allowing this boom of waste. The core culprit? The Central banks which fund the militarys that control the oil reserves and the Fed which prints the dollars Oil is bought and sold in. We're going to be living through an age where our resources are VERY VERY limited and we'll all be the most resource-poor.

Furlong said...

"Doesn't matter. Those increases are after the fact of Reagan changing the system and CEOs being hired to bust unions by "downsizing". The bubbles happened AFTER>>>>"

....after the link to gold was removed.

"Nothing happened in the 70s. As you already stated, most of the increases didn't happen until after Reagan. At best, the neo-con movement was slowly gaining steam in the 70s and this resulted in some cynical increases."

I was just quoting the article you gave me.

"
Therefore, you use of the word "fascism" was WRONG WRONG WRONG."

Sorry. I guess I can see why a CEO earning a million dollars is more absurd than the soft form of fascism we suffer from.

Furlong said...

"And lived in a hut, apparently."

Or my apartment...

"As if the corporations couldn't pay those outrageous salaries in gold *rolls eyes*."

No. They couldn't. There wouldn't be enough gold. Inflating the money supply redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy. You cannot inflate the supply of gold.

"
You can manufacture it where ever you want, but you don't have the right to sell it in our country if you don't make it in our country. ;)"

So the people in your country do not have to right to buy a product I make in another country even if they want to? Seems rather authoritarian...I thought this was the free world?

"Those people have rights, but their corporation does not. Their corporation is not a person. "

Sorry Chris, but a corporation doesn't have free will. This is a false argument because you're assuming that corporation is performing actions on its own free will. People makes these decisions and people have rights.

"
They did, for many decades. But then something changed? Market evangelism made them greedy."

I'd like you to source that.

As well, people have always been greedy, well beyond the auto industry.

"Are you implying that unionized industries do not hire new employees? Are you implying that when vast parts of the economy were unionized that this did not happen?"

I'm implying the most unionized city in America, Detroit, is a wasteland whose population has shrunk faster than New Orleans. Gee, can't we all live in Detroit so we can all enjoy high wages!

I'm also implying, the average person doesn't make a choice between working for a union or not; therefore, union wages apply very little pressure to wages in the labour markets. If these forces were there individuals would have the opportunity to make real decisions based on them. They don't. And wages are still high.

Chris said...

"Grampy was not part of a union, he worked in a free market and undercut his competitors a lot to ensure he had work year round (at least this is what Grampy explained to me)."

You obviously don't understand how averages work and how prices are driven up and down. Wages are driven up and down by factors that cause them to rise. Unions cause them to rise, because many workers want to work making union wages and many businesses want the most competent labor. This means that unions directly increase the wages of EVERYONE. It does not matter if Grampy was or wasn't part of a union. His wages were directly effected.

"I'd like to know where, cause I'd go there right now."

A unionized industry.

"I'm sorry Chris. I completely have the right to sell someone a bag of burning shit for $10,000 if they are willing to purchase it."

No, sorry, fraud is not a right.

"The problem here Chris is that we've been living in an extraordinary age where Oil is treated as if it is unlimited. Because Oil is bought and sold in US dollars, it has been severly subsidized for the West allowing this boom of waste. The core culprit? The Central banks which fund the militarys that control the oil reserves and the Fed which prints the dollars Oil is bought and sold in. We're going to be living through an age where our resources are VERY VERY limited and we'll all be the most resource-poor."

The massive productive power of the factory came before the demise of the gold standard, Josh.

"....after the link to gold was removed."

True, but the dramatic salary increases only started in relation to union busting and the eventual "downsizing" movement. This is the direct cause. MOREOVER, and I like the fact that you ignored this point: The downsizing movement with its ridiculous executive salaries could have happened on the gold standard or a fiat standard. It doesn't matter. The salaries were paid because they wanted the high-paying union jobs gutted. The "gold standard" crap you keep spewing is thus nonsensical propaganda.

"Sorry. I guess I can see why a CEO earning a million dollars is more absurd than the soft form of fascism we suffer from."

If you really want to be clear: it is a plutocracy. Again, Josh, you and Glen Beck seem to have trouble correctly applying certain terms.

Furlong said...

"No, sorry, fraud is not a right. "

Noone said it was.

"The massive productive power of the factory came before the demise of the gold standard, Josh. "

Consumer waste did not. And massive productive power did not come before oil.

"The salaries were paid because they wanted the high-paying union jobs gutted. The "gold standard" crap you keep spewing is thus nonsensical propaganda."

No. Sorry. The income gap would not be nearly as large with a stable currency. These corporations are able to borrow large amounts of cheap cash from the banks enabling the top executives to pay themselves gross salaries. In a stable monetary system, credit would not flow so freely and talentless executives wouldn't be able to demand the millions they're getting today.

Chris said...

"Or my apartment..."

You do not have the choice to work or not, Josh. There is no choice there. When you have a family and thus need the room, you don't have a choice as to whether you should or shouldn't buy a house. It is a requirement, not a choice.

"No. They couldn't. There wouldn't be enough gold. Inflating the money supply redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy. You cannot inflate the supply of gold."

What are you talking about! THEY WOULD SIMPLE PAY THEM A FUCKING LOT OF GOLD. HOLY CRAP! The CEO salaries HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FED> They were paid because Reagan allowed CEO to be paid based on performance. This then precipitated in CEOs "downsizing" to ensure the bonuses of high performance.

Again, they would be paid more gold, more copper, or more silver or whatever.

"So the people in your country do not have to right to buy a product I make in another country even if they want to? Seems rather authoritarian...I thought this was the free world?"

Free worlds don't enslave populations.

"Sorry Chris, but a corporation doesn't have free will. This is a false argument because you're assuming that corporation is performing actions on its own free will. People makes these decisions and people have rights."

Yup, the people of the corporations have individual rights, but not the corporations themselves. Your argument is an example of the fallacy of composition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

"I'd like you to source that."

Ford had warranties on their vehicles for decades. I think it was 5 years, wasn't it?

"I'm implying the most unionized city in America, Detroit, is a wasteland whose population has shrunk faster than New Orleans. Gee, can't we all live in Detroit so we can all enjoy high wages!"

Um, I think that has something to do with downsizing, Josh. LOL, not thinking about Moore has made you kinda dumb.

"I'm also implying, the average person doesn't make a choice between working for a union or not; therefore, union wages apply very little pressure to wages in the labour markets."

The average person? It doesn't matter. If one position opening for a union job attracts 400 applicants, and if other businesses are competing for those very same applicants, this results in non-unionized wages rising. If this happens over and over again, as it has, over decades, the average wage is slowly driven up. Since the private workforce used to be much more unionized, and since the public sector still rather unionized, I see no reason why I shouldn't conclude this is the case. The effects spread out from the union job opening, like a ripple.


"If these forces were there individuals would have the opportunity to make real decisions based on them. They don't. And wages are still high."

The opportunities have been there. Over 4 decades millions of workers were hired for union jobs. Old workers die, new workers are hired. Are you on crack?

Chris said...

Also, if there weren't enough gold, there would be massive pressure to find new gold to pay the competitive CEOs. The CEOs would demand it, new gold would be found, they would be paid, inflation would result for goods and this fun little circle would repeat itself until someone realized that paper money is easier than digging in the dirt for yellow metal.

Furlong said...

1. I think you perceive way more people work for unions than actually do.

2. Do you or have you ever worked for a union?

3. Do you have the choice to leave your job and join a union for a higher wage? If so, why don't you?

4. If you don't work for a union, and you don't have the opportunity to work for a union, are you making slave wages?

Furlong said...

"Also, if there weren't enough gold, there would be massive pressure to find new gold to pay the competitive CEOs. The CEOs would demand it, new gold would be found, they would be paid, inflation would result for goods and this fun little circle would repeat itself until someone realized that paper money is easier than digging in the dirt for yellow metal."

The point is that it is too easy.

Chris said...

"The point is that it is too easy."

The point is that pressure from the CEOs, via "competition", would drive gold to inflate in one way or another. It would drive, as it were, as the economy expanded as well, the eventually elimination of the gold standard. Expanding economies are also very, very bad for gold as a standard.

Chris said...

"1. I think you perceive way more people work for unions than actually do."

I think you don't take into account the effects of the unionization over the entire history of that movement. Yes, unionization is at a low in the private sector, but it was not always so..

"2. Do you or have you ever worked for a union?

3. Do you have the choice to leave your job and join a union for a higher wage? If so, why don't you?

4. If you don't work for a union, and you don't have the opportunity to work for a union, are you making slave wages?"

This argument is not about me. It is about general effects.

Sheldon Furlong said...

"What gives the government the right to violently force corporations to distribute that arbitrary amount of profits?"

You are missing my point. It should not be a government issue. It is a moral issue. The folks who buy from me should be more concerned about how I run the business not how cheap they can buy my product.
It is a paradigm shift in thinking. It requires us to examine closely what is truly important. Our values and sense of right and wrong need to be our guide. it is the shift in thinking that made drinking and driving unacceptable.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to act this way as the whole structure of our life is geared to accumulating more at the best deal we can find.
Globalization was a giant leap forward in removing the consumer from knowing or even caring about the supplier. This will turn out to be one of our gravest mistakes.
We walk the supermarkets looking for the best deal on carrots or steak and are content in not caring where it came from or under what conditions it is supplied.
Unions are an aberration. A symptom of this callous approach to living. Required only because we demand the best deal, at any human cost.

Chris said...

Nope. Unions are what got us out of poverty in the first place. It is the ad man that got us to only think narrowly about the best deal. That's your ballpark, Dad.

Chris said...

Moreover, it is the neo-con philosophies, including libertarianism and liberalism, that have made the search for the best deal the primary value. The left wing ideologies have always been about quality over quantity. Anarchists, Marxists, and communists have always strove to look at the world differently than the liberals.

Furlong said...

"The point is that pressure from the CEOs, via "competition", would drive gold to inflate in one way or another. It would drive, as it were, as the economy expanded as well, the eventually elimination of the gold standard. Expanding economies are also very, very bad for gold as a standard."

Then the free market will provide another, more sound currency.

"This argument is not about me. It is about general effects."

Sorry, I'm just trying to think of someone I know whose wage is affected by unions. Apparently noone.

Actually, there is a couple of people that work at RIM now that I know performed the same type of work for Aliant (the telco here)within a union. Besides the fact the Aliant was shutting down their unionized techsupport centers and contracting them out to third party call centers in the Maritimes that are more cost effective (this started occuring after the union's contract came up and the union went on strike for months over concerns about job security...yep...they did a great job putting the union employees out of work for months, and then completely.), the people I know left Aliant and took a pay cut to come to RIM. Why? Because working within a union provided 0 opportunity. I've never met anyone that has enjoyed working within a union, ever.

"You are missing my point. It should not be a government issue."

In a conversation that centres itself around the role of government, you should stop talking about how things "should be" if you're not going to talk about what the government "should do" to get us there...since you believe government has a role in directing our nation into the future.

"Unions are what got us out of poverty in the first place."

You have not yet been able to defend this assertion with any substance.

"Moreover, it is the neo-con philosophies, including libertarianism and liberalism"

Chris is the only person in the world that would equate neo-conservatives with libertarians and liberals.

"The left wing ideologies have always been about quality over quantity."

Well they certainly are not about quantity considering their philosophies would bring less services, less products, less freedom, less innovation, less wealth, less employment...less of just about anything...

Sheldon Furlong said...

"In a conversation that centres itself around the role of government, you should stop talking about how things "should be" if you're not going to talk about what the government "should do" to get us there...since you believe government has a role in directing our nation into the future.
"

This not about what government should do. It is about how we think, our values and our attitudes. Government will and does reflect those values. if people change government will follow. Government has a role, to reflect the will of the people.

Furlong said...

"This not about what government should do. It is about how we think, our values and our attitudes. Government will and does reflect those values. if people change government will follow. Government has a role, to reflect the will of the people."

This conversation is actually about what government should, and more importantly shouldn't, do.

Anyway, did you watch the videos Dad? I would think you'd like them.

Chris said...

"What government should and shouldn't do" is an authoritarian argument that the people shouldn't think this or that way. "The government" is code word for right-wing fascism/authoritarianism. They say they love freedom, but what they really love is those who don't agree with them not having a say.

Furlong said...

""What government should and shouldn't do" is an authoritarian argument that the people shouldn't think this or that way. "The government" is code word for right-wing fascism/authoritarianism. They say they love freedom, but what they really love is those who don't agree with them not having a say."

Yes, people who I do not agree with should have no say over my property. When it comes to my property I am completely and fully and authoritarian. However when it comes to your property I'm completely respectful.

Chris said...

"Yes, people who I do not agree with should have no say over my property. When it comes to my property I am completely and fully and authoritarian. However when it comes to your property I'm completely respectful."

Thanks for admitting it. Hence you worship of corporate and small business tyrannies, but hate of "The Government". It seems that only a long period of poverty will beat that contradictory outlook from your perch.



Hey, Dad, did you know that unions have existed for thousands of years? They were known as "guilds" before the twentieth century. Did you also know that when the Aristocracy learned how to So, to conclude, unions are definitely not "aberrations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Fall_of_the_guilds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Background_of_early_guildlike_associations_AD_300_-_600

Like Josh, you seems to know very little about your assumptions. It is good that this debate has brought one of them out into the sun.

Chris said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman

Understanding the connection between guilds and modern unions requires an understanding of journeymen.

Furlong said...

"Despite its advantages for agricultural and artisan producers, the guild became a target of much criticism towards the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1800s. They were believed to oppose free trade and hinder technological innovation, technology transfer and business development. According to several accounts of this time, guilds became increasingly involved in simple territorial struggles against each other and against free practitioners of their arts.
An example of the last of the British Guilds meeting rooms c1820

Two of the most outspoken critics of the guild system were Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith, and all over Europe a tendency to oppose government control over trades in favour of laissez-faire free market systems was growing rapidly and making its way into the political and legal system. Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto also criticized the guild system for its rigid gradation of social rank and the relation of oppressor/oppressed entailed by this system. From this time comes the low regard in which some people hold the guilds to this day. For example, Smith writes in The Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter X, paragraph 72):

It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of wages and profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established. (...) and when any particular class of artificers or traders thought proper to act as a corporation without a charter, such adulterine guilds, as they were called, were not always disfranchised upon that account, but obliged to fine annually to the king for permission to exercise their usurped privileges.

In part due to their own inability to control unruly corporate behavior, the tide turned against the guilds.

Because of industrialization and modernization of the trade and industry, and the rise of powerful nation-states that could directly issue patent and copyright protections — often revealing the trade secrets — the guilds' power faded. After the French Revolution they fell in most European nations through the 1800s, as the guild system was disbanded and replaced by free trade laws. By that time, many former handicraft workers had been forced to seek employment in the emerging manufacturing industries, using not closely guarded techniques but standardized methods controlled by corporations.

The decline factors of guilds are given following:

1. There was no proper definition of the rights and trade area of concerning guild.
2. Middlemen (mediators) played negative roles.
3. The factory system replaced the guild system.
4. Discoveries opened a wide market for trading and guilds were unable to provide products."

Sounds like progress to me.

By the way, the factory system did not completely replace the guild system. Any profession where an individual performs a unique task that requires high skill, there are associations (whether called a union or something else) that plays a similar role as a guild once did.

The factory system only replaced the guild system where the market deemed necessary. The guild system could not provide for the mass production of products that have allowed for our standard of living.

Chris said...

"Despite its advantages for agricultural and artisan producers, the guild became a target of much criticism towards the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1800s. They were believed to oppose free trade and hinder technological innovation, technology transfer and business development. According to several accounts of this time, guilds became increasingly involved in simple territorial struggles against each other and against free practitioners of their arts.
An example of the last of the British Guilds meeting rooms c1820"

Yes, and? They became obsolete. Nice story. Unions and business organizations took their place.

"Two of the most outspoken critics of the guild system were Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith, and all over Europe a tendency to oppose government control over trades in favour of laissez-faire free market systems was growing rapidly and making its way into the political and legal system. Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto also criticized the guild system for its rigid gradation of social rank and the relation of oppressor/oppressed entailed by this system. From this time comes the low regard in which some people hold the guilds to this day. For example, Smith writes in The Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter X, paragraph 72):"

I like how Marx is always trotted out when he agree with the free market tyrant's opinion.

Chris said...

"It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of wages and profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established. (...) and when any particular class of artificers or traders thought proper to act as a corporation without a charter, such adulterine guilds, as they were called, were not always disfranchised upon that account, but obliged to fine annually to the king for permission to exercise their usurped privileges.

In part due to their own inability to control unruly corporate behavior, the tide turned against the guilds."

Yes, and? This is merely the transition from feudal capitalism to capitalist capitalism.

"Because of industrialization and modernization of the trade and industry, and the rise of powerful nation-states that could directly issue patent and copyright protections — often revealing the trade secrets — the guilds' power faded. After the French Revolution they fell in most European nations through the 1800s, as the guild system was disbanded and replaced by free trade laws. By that time, many former handicraft workers had been forced to seek employment in the emerging manufacturing industries, using not closely guarded techniques but standardized methods controlled by corporations."

And hence the real beginning of the union movement. Those who had made a good living before were forced to work in slave condition in the factories. This lead them to reconstitute the guild system, but in a different form: factory unions. In fact, the very name "trade union" speaks to this very transition.

"1. There was no proper definition of the rights and trade area of concerning guild.
2. Middlemen (mediators) played negative roles.
3. The factory system replaced the guild system.
4. Discoveries opened a wide market for trading and guilds were unable to provide products.""

Number 3 is the only important causes. If factories had not arose, there'd still be guilds.

Sounds like progress to me.

"By the way, the factory system did not completely replace the guild system."

True, but most of it was replaced. Say 95%. That is a paradigm shift from a system that had existed for thousands of years.


"The factory system only replaced the guild system where the market deemed necessary."

Which was basically everywhere by the 20th century.

"The guild system could not provide for the mass production of products that have allowed for our standard of living."

Indeed, but within the context of factory unionization. Trade unionization replaced the journeyman half of the guild system, because tradesmen were the original freemen, and the freemen didn't want to be fucking wage slaves.

Furlong said...

"I like how Marx is always trotted out when he agree with the free market tyrant's opinion."

Marx is trotted our when he says something intelligent. Apparently, and I can't say from my own exposure to his work, it hasn't happened often.

Chris said...

"Marx is trotted our when he says something intelligent. Apparently, and I can't say from my own exposure to his work, it hasn't happened often."

Marx is trotted out and used as a propaganda device, no more. Your response is just an attempt to hide that fact.