[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:40:25 PM Rational Thought wrote:
"A biased analysis. First, Democratic administrations have stopped and "interfered" with labor unrest (AA, UPS)."
Yes but Democrats dont pretend to be lassaiz faire.Republicans preach minimal govt interference, let the chips fall where they may, the market is the great equalizer. But when labor enjoys an advantage they dont hesitate to step in.
"Second, it is perfectly understandable for the government to interfere when the cost of the disruption exceeds the importance of a particular group and as a result, generates a non-value maximizing outcome for society."
Exceeds the importance of a particular group? Whoa! So only the important people can cause disruption? Who decides who is important? I thought that in Amerca, everyone is important and we all should expect equal treatment under the law? So now ones rights are measured and granted in accordance with monetary value? One law for us important people and one law for the rest of you?
" Finally, I believe the decision for both incidents were framed by the negative economic impact, disruption being a by-product."
I beleive that one of the tenents of Free market philosophy is that periodic disruptions are market self corrections. They should be allowed to run their course.
When Bush the 1st refused to issue the PEB at EAL thousands were stranded. Bush said the inconvenience was the price we pay for a free market. His son says the opposite, that he will use government power to suppress the desire of workers to get their price for their product-labor. There is no way, despite your eloquent delivery to reconcile the inconsistancies.
"It appears that you both do not understand my point and the concept of free market capitalism. UAL filed bankruptcy today and guess what? The planes still fly! If the routes and the assets are productive, they will be used. If they are not, the government should not support them. The administration intefered in situations that would have caused a different impact on the economy and at a point of declining economic activity. You should try and understand that. But I have a sense that you have some sort of agenda that I am not aware of that prevents you from seeing this in a broader light."
I understand your point, I just dont agree with your assertion that Bush is not pro-business or ani-labor. Your half baked rationalizations that you use to try and justify his obvious bias towards business and against labor are absurd. Again how do you reconcile the fact that Bush told the Dockworkers that he would not allow them to strike, due to the economy, yet he allowed the owners of the ports to lockout the workers and effectively close the west coasts ports for over a week?
"Well, they didn't have property rights in the USSR."
They didnt have a good human rights record either, maybe thats why it no longer exists.
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:40:25 PM Rational Thought wrote:
"A biased analysis. First, Democratic administrations have stopped and "interfered" with labor unrest (AA, UPS)."
Yes but Democrats dont pretend to be lassaiz faire.Republicans preach minimal govt interference, let the chips fall where they may, the market is the great equalizer. But when labor enjoys an advantage they dont hesitate to step in.
"Second, it is perfectly understandable for the government to interfere when the cost of the disruption exceeds the importance of a particular group and as a result, generates a non-value maximizing outcome for society."
Exceeds the importance of a particular group? Whoa! So only the important people can cause disruption? Who decides who is important? I thought that in Amerca, everyone is important and we all should expect equal treatment under the law? So now ones rights are measured and granted in accordance with monetary value? One law for us important people and one law for the rest of you?
" Finally, I believe the decision for both incidents were framed by the negative economic impact, disruption being a by-product."
I beleive that one of the tenents of Free market philosophy is that periodic disruptions are market self corrections. They should be allowed to run their course.
When Bush the 1st refused to issue the PEB at EAL thousands were stranded. Bush said the inconvenience was the price we pay for a free market. His son says the opposite, that he will use government power to suppress the desire of workers to get their price for their product-labor. There is no way, despite your eloquent delivery to reconcile the inconsistancies.
"It appears that you both do not understand my point and the concept of free market capitalism. UAL filed bankruptcy today and guess what? The planes still fly! If the routes and the assets are productive, they will be used. If they are not, the government should not support them. The administration intefered in situations that would have caused a different impact on the economy and at a point of declining economic activity. You should try and understand that. But I have a sense that you have some sort of agenda that I am not aware of that prevents you from seeing this in a broader light."
I understand your point, I just dont agree with your assertion that Bush is not pro-business or ani-labor. Your half baked rationalizations that you use to try and justify his obvious bias towards business and against labor are absurd. Again how do you reconcile the fact that Bush told the Dockworkers that he would not allow them to strike, due to the economy, yet he allowed the owners of the ports to lockout the workers and effectively close the west coasts ports for over a week?
"Well, they didn't have property rights in the USSR."
They didnt have a good human rights record either, maybe thats why it no longer exists.
