Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (112594)	9/10/2011 11:18:16 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224744

you didn't answer the questions. you did not say that what the longshoremen did was wrong. thank you for posting your credentials.....again. I am thoroughly convinced that you have more than enough training in manipulating people to make you an effective community organizer and agitator. Congratulations.

To: Paul V. who wrote (112594)	9/11/2011 9:45:42 AM
From: CF Rebel	13 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 224744

The first thing that should be said about your recent posts is that while your background is in educating and negotiating for unions and organizing, your are first and foremost a broker. While I have nothing against brokers who trade non-coercively, I have real problems with those who deal coercively. You are in the latter category. Those who are coercive brokers have no conscience - they believe, "The end result is what justifies the means" (see siliconinvestor.com. In your case, you see nothing wrong with union members using violence or destruction of property to force others to bend to their will. This lack of morality is anathema to American and free market values. To make personal gains at a cost to the greater good (of all, not the union) is no different from the executive or other employee or who will authorize or participate in the dumping of toxic wastes in unauthorized areas to please the boss and get a promotion. This kind of person lives two lives, the one where he is willing to do dirty work at work and the one where he goes home and is outraged by what others are doing against his private values. To do this, you are either without a conscience or a hypocrite. That, is the coercive broker. Imagine someone who doesn't like the transaction costs at his stockbroker. He can try to negotiate something better or go elsewhere. He doesn't begin a campaign of vandalism or violence. He doesn't organize a mob and make threats. If he can't get a better deal elsewhere, he may very well stay where he is and finally accept that the market has spoken. But, don't tell that to a union. The fact that a union is a legalized gang gives the union member a "seal of approval" that translates into an impetus to do anything they damned well please at whatever real cost to anyone who gets in the way. This is not the "American way," it is the worst kind of selfishness that goes against American values and principles. It is also why so few Americans want to be associated in any way with a union. That is just one reason why unions are in decline, especially in the private sector. Unions, ultimately, end up pricing themselves out of existence - the disease kills the host. See General Motors and Chrysler for instance. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt. By keeping these weak, high legacy cost companies in business by negotiating lower labor costs, they put Ford, the company that didn't seek taxpayer funds, in the position of perversely having to compete with the highest labor costs. (I for one will never buy another union-made car because of the immorality here.) Unionism works only where labor is in a truly powerful position. After having destroyed most of the foreign productive capacity in World War II, it was the U.S. where most of the production was located. This is what enabled unions to have a "golden age" until the late 1950s. As foreign capacity came on line, their competition eventually put a cap on U.S. unions growth and bargaining power. Also, as laws were enacted to protect workers, the reasons for unions to exist diminished. As the workplace has evolved, unions find it harder to justify their existence. Both workers and employers learned from the experience. Unions can thrive only in a narrow set of circumstances. They can improve the lives of relatively few only while economic circumstances allow. Economically, unions drive up costs, causing market disruptions and inefficiencies that cannot last. As Ludwid von Mises said, No one has ever succeeded in the effort to demonstrate that unionism could improve the conditions and raise the standard of living of all [my emphasis] those eager to earn wages." For every economic gain a union member realizes, someone else must sacrifice. Just ask any taxpayer. Today, with U.S. industry in decent, unions are puking membership. Their desperation to preserve membership and outsized economic gains (see longshoremens' compensation as one example) shows in their violent behavior. The rats are cornered and their behavior, while being rather expected, is nonetheless immoral. I've met very few union members who understood the concept that by making your employer more productive, you help insure your own job's survival. The Japanese inherently understood this, but the Americans have always been encouraged by their Marxist-trained leaders to be adversarial, hence, destructive. Garbage in, garbage out. You reap what you sow. This is why I cry no tears at the plight of union employees. You said in another post, "Again, we have the TEA PARTY carrying firearms!!! (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=27629326) No citation given. So what? You are probably passing by people everyday who are carrying legal, licensed concealed firearms for personal protection. Do you have a problem with that? Do guns carried by trained individuals who had to pass a gauntlet of paperwork and background checking scare you? My first reaction to that comment (!!!) was that another hyperbolic liberal was referring to the Arizona individual who had a rifle slung over his shoulder at an Obama rally. You know, the one MSNBC wouldn't show the face of because they didn't want you to know it was a black man ("a man of color" like MSNBC referred to the president as) attending the rally. A CNN reporter on the scene spoke of how "jarring" it was to see an AR-15 up close. OMG!!!!!!!! Oh, to live the cloistered life of a liberal elitist. A life lived narrowly is a life not lived. CF Rebel

To: Paul V. who wrote (112594)	9/11/2011 11:12:51 AM
From: locogringo	7 Recommendations Respond to of 224744

My formal education was a background in sociology, psychology, organizational and behavioral development, power structure identification, community organizing, business, education, counseling, union organizing and labor relations, and as a professor where I taught MBA, Education Supervision, marketing, and labor relations. Translation: Extortion and Blackmail Yes, I am not going to going to tell you what we made. Then, threader_Paul V, refrain from asking others such personal questions, if you are going to exempt yourself from them. Personally I think you are nothing but a loud mouth, 2-bit phony, acting out your fantasies on this board. I think you are a failure, just like your unions and your Obama. Prove me wrong, or will I be on pretend ignore again?