Monday, November 19, 2012

Ron Unz — Raising American Wages…by Raising American Wages


Even conservatives are getting that "it's the demand, stupid." US workers aren't making enough to fuel growth now that the debt binge is over and consumers are saving and delevering.

The American Conservative
Raising American Wages…by Raising American Wages
Ron Unz
(h/t Kevin Fathi via email) 

The reason for the drag? The following short article makes it clear. Real wages are not keeping pace with productivity advances. Capital share is increasing while labor share is stagnant. Productivity gains are being hoarded at the top, which is resulting in demand leakage.

United States Department of Labor — Bureau of Labor Statistics
The compensation-productivity gap: a visual essay
Susan Fleck, John Glaser, and Shawn Sprague

72 comments:

JK said...

Is there a relationship between progressive taxation and rising wages? Would much higher marginal tax rates on high incomes "force" employers to distribute revenues more equitably? i.e. either invest it in capital, labor (workers), or lose it to black hole of the sovereign issuer that doesn't 'need' those tax dollars?

paul meli said...

Here's the way I see it:

Keeping spending at current levels…

Making taxation more progressive increases after-tax income for wage earners giving them more spending capacity…

…increasing aggregate demand and lowering unemployment…increasing the demand for labor…

…driving wages higher…reducing income inequality somewhat.

Businesses will continue to find ways to drive down labor costs… but unions are dead so,…

…we need some kind of federal standards on wages, benefits and punishment for off-shoring…

…prosperity, assuming productivity gains keep it so we can produce at least what we consume.

The bug in the current system is the never-ending drive to increase profits…which parasitizes the system.

This of course can't work…the parasite requires a healthy host.

netbacker said...

So Bob what IS your solution for the current monetary situation we are in ? What's the alternative that you can demonstrate that will work for the betterment of the 99%?
What form of un-funny money do you recommend?

Tom Hickey said...

Funny then that its the wealthy elites that are lobbying for sound money and austerity to keep inflation at bay.

Everyone knows that inflation advantages debtors and disadvantages savers, and the wealthy are by definition the savers. They strong believe that "funny money" leads to inflation, so that oppose it.

So I guess they haven't yet figured out the Cantillon effect that greatly benefits them.

Also, it is not true that MMT economists are unaware or dismissive of knowledge that Cantillon initially contributed. Schumpeter was well aware of Cantillon, and that development of that knowledge can be seen in the work of Minsky, whence it passed to Randy Wray. MMT economists and PKE in general are well aware that the credit cycle is driven by those with access to credit. Thus rises in asset prices precede those in consumer markets, and this greatly benefits of the wealthy, who are able to leverage their asset purchases.

Matt Franko said...

Paul,

also there are our "friends" in the external sector:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=BOPGSTB

You can see that before the crash they ran the trade deficit up to almost $70B/month ($750B annual) with no fiscal adjustment till the shit already hit the fan (metaphor ;) and Bush?Cheney sent out the $650 which was too little too late...

rsp,

JK said...

Bob,

Is it possible to understand Austrian concepts and also disagree with them?

Crake said...

"Perhaps there might be some incentive for further automation"

Isn't this how minimum wages help infrastructure. I recall a report showing that most small businesses hire workers because they do not have the capital to invest in machinery. In other words, they use what is cheap (labor) and conserve what is expensive (do not invest in capital.) By making labor more expensive, you encourage business to invest in capital production to conserve the more expensive labor.

Crake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paul meli said...

"The analogy of the "economy" to physics is completely baseless."

Based on what reasoning?

You are also rejecting the sectoral balances identity with your statement.

paul meli said...

"The “economy” is really nothing but people trading goods and services based upon their personal whims. It’s not really a “thing”. It is not a “system” and thus it isn’t a “closed system” or a “collection” of “closed systems”. "

No one has ever claimed the economy is a closed system (although it is). The world economy is a closed system too…we don't have interstellar trade (yet).

MMT recognizes that the money system is closed. It follows that, since economic activity is a function of spending which is a function of the quantity of dollars in the hands of households that economic activity is constrained by a lack of liquidity.

If you looked at the diagram it should also be obvious that deficits fund savings and by extension, profits.

paul meli said...

"As my last batch of deleted post conclusively demonstrated"

Bob, it has yet to be conclusively demonstrated that you should be allowed to handle sharp objects.

Crake said...

Bob Roddis,

Giving you the premise that more money lowers it value relative to the price of goods and services ( a premise I do not hold because the amount of goods ands services will increase if not in constraint but a premise I will allow for the following argument), how does an increase in money benefit the wealthy elite at expense of middle class and poor? Isn't it the complete opposite?

Yes things will become more expensive in regard to money, but so will labor. That means people who tend to live more in a situation of paycheck-to-paycheck, with a lower percentage of their income going to savings, will have very little change in their purchasing power. For example, stuff will cost more but their wages will increase by same percentage, so their monthly budget situation will be the same. And since they tended to save less, they have relatively little savings to be hit with the inflation increase.

But wealthy, who likely have a much higher propensity to save, would tend to have much more savings already (a much higher factor of their earnings than the lesser income earners), which would get hit. Therefore, they lose much more purchasing power , both in number and percentage decrease, than they did have.

JK said...

Crake,

My understanding of Bob's argument is that whoever gets those new dollars first, gets to use them before prices inflate. So goods, services, assets, and whatnot can be purchased a bargain prices.

So it seems Bob is saying the wealthiest get there hands on these newly created dollars first.

He can correct me where I may be misunderstanding him.

see Bob!… I'm trying to understand where you're coming from :)

Tom Hickey said...

This is in fact the case, JK. The wealthy have superior access to credit because they have collateral, a revenue stream, and a solid credit history, as well as having connections. As a result in contractions, when prices fall and credit tightens, the wealthy are able to leverage purchases of assets at fire sale prices. This is what's happening now in the RE market. Foreclosures are being bundled and sold to wealthy investors who will rent them first and then flip them as the market picks up. Easy money for them.

Anonymous said...

The issuance of fiat funny money is INTENDED to rob middle class and poor people of purchasing power for the benefit of the wealthy elite. Bob Roddis

Actually, the new fiat makes it easier for the middle class to pay their debts to the counterfeiting cartel, the banking system, and as for the poor who probably did not qualify for those loans then they are compensated to some extent for their stolen purchasing power.

Anonymous said...

but for others as a long run "inflation hedge" ignoring the fact that the sole cause of the general price rise is the increase in the fiat funny money supply. Bob R.

Actually, it was credit, not fiat that drove the housing boom and unlike credit, fiat does not necessarily have to be repaid (if the monetary sovereign never runs a budget surplus ) and of course fiat does not have to be repaid with interest. So while fiat creation might create persistent price inflation, it is the banking cartel that is the cause of the boom-bust cycle.

Anonymous said...

There is no problem that needs to be solved Bob R.

Actually, there is a problem since debt is measured in nominal, not real terms. So an increase in purchasing power DOES NOT make the repayment of debt easier; instead it tends to make debt repayment harder.

paul meli said...

"Savings" means holding something back for consumption in the future." - Bob

Yep. Which means some current production goes unsold...which increases inventory...which means businesses need fewer employees because the following years production won't have to be as large...unemployment goes up...aggregate demand goes down...businesses lay off more employees...people have to dip into savings...savings goes down...we're back to where we started but more people are unemployed.

Anonymous said...

The monetary sovereign should deficit spend since that is where new government money comes from and a money supply should grow since a static money supply rewards risk-free money hoarding. But progress requires taking risks so a static money supply is anti-progress.

IF we did not have a huge private debt to the counterfeiting cartel then I would be in favor of a smaller Federal deficit. But right now, the bigger the better, though the deficit spending should be targeted at victims of the banks, the general population, both debtors and non-debtors equally.

The longer term solution is to reduce fiat to legal tender for government debts only and to allow genuine private currency competition for the payment of privater debts only. But now there is the matter of unjust debt to tend to.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing wrong with money "hoarding". Bob R

Actually, there is according to the Bible: Matthew 25:14-30.

And, it's not your money, so it's none of your damned business Bob R

As a taxpayer, I expect the Federal Government to keep the value of fiat from rising so my real tax burden does not rise (the "stealth deflation tax"). So it is my business that the Federal Government not encourage hoarding of its money.

But you should be free to hoard private money (good for private debts only) EXCEPT in a true free market of private money creation, successful attempts to corner a particular private money supply would be met by the introduction of new private money supplies.

beowulf said...

Unz's wealth distribution doughnut is pretty amazing (35% of net wealth held by top one percent, 28% held by next four percent and 37% of net wealth is held by remaining ninety-five percent)).

Speaks for itself as an argument for shifting from an income tax to a wealth tax as Daniel Altman suggested today in the Times (and by Ronald McKinnon earlier this year in the WSJ).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/to-reduce-inequality-tax-wealth-not-income.html?_r=0

Greg said...

Interesting Bob

So we dont have a system but we do have consumption schedules and saving schedules, which can always be met if the govt just stays out of the way.

How is it that everyone can meet their consumption or saving schedule?

Matt Franko said...

frlbane,

That scripture, to me, seems to indicate that the Lord thought it better for Israelites to just put silver back in the ground than to lend it out at interest...

which was illegal per the Authority they were supposed to be subjecting themselves to...

rsp,

paul meli said...

"Speaks for itself as an argument for shifting from an income tax to a wealth tax" - beo

This…+1

paul meli said...

"So we dont have a system but we do have consumption schedules and saving schedules, which can always be met if the govt just stays out of the way." - Greg

This is an excellent summary of the Austrian argument.

As is nearly always the case, the most (seemingly) complex arguments can be distilled down to a simple statement.

Matt Franko said...

"housing prices collapse down from artificially high prices to realistic prices but the loan payoff (which would never have been taken out without the bank being able to create the loan out of nothing) is not reset."

Bob,

Our currency system has nothing to do with these price fluctuations. These prices fluctuate by govt/legal decree... doesnt have anything to do with the type of currency system we run... the system just provides for the settlement balances at the prices the govt legally agrees to...

rsp,

rsp,

Anonymous said...

@Matt Franko,

Lending at interest to foreigners is allowed in Deuteronomy 23:19-20 but not to one's fellow countrymen.

Unknown said...

Bob believes that if we only used gold and no paper money, there would be no problems. Which is obviously nonsense. The fact that it's nonsense is obvious to everyone but Bob, who believes that no one else "understands" his idiotic, imbecilic, deluded, moronic opinions.

Bob also believes that left to its own devices "the market" would spontaneously choose to use only gold and not paper money, which again is obviously nonsense. Once again this fact is obvious to everyone but Bob who believes that no one else "understands" his idiotic, imbecilic, deluded, moronic opinions.

Unknown said...

The aristocratic von Mises in a letter to the sociopathic Ayn Rand:

"You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.”

More from the aristocratic von Mises:

"The common man's inferiority to the average businessman manifests itself first of all in his limited ability to think"

"It is true that the masses do not think. But just for this reason they follow those who do think."

And a little gem of a lie from the compulsive liar Rothbard, justifying the brutality of child labour during the industrial revolution:

"children were not driven to the factories with whips; they went voluntarily and gladly"

Matt Franko said...

f,

"Lending at interest to foreigners is allowed in Deuteronomy 23:19-20 but not to one's fellow countrymen"

Right and if you think about it, this would work as if you look at it as 2 sectors, establishing liabilities in weight measures of silver within Israel where there existed no silver mines would quickly turn into chaos, ie 10 dogs after 8 bones... (btw which looked like what happened)...

however one could establish liabilities with the external sector in weight measures of silver where at least the external sector had access to the silver mines and there at least was a mathematical non-zero probability that arrangement would function successfully and not quickly degrade into chaos...

Good find! rsp,

Unknown said...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe's obsequious support for feudalism:

"In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers".

"Appealing to the always popular sentiment of envy, kings promised the people cheaper and better justice in exchange for and at the expense of taxing--cutting down to size--their own betters."

http://mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp

Unknown said...

The Mises Institute's nostalgic attachment to the Confederacy, and links to the racist neo-Confederate 'League of the South':

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/summer/the-neo-confederates?page=0,1

Lew Rockwell (chairman of the Mises Institute), Thomas Woods (austrian/libertarian "economist"),and Jeffrey Tucker (Mises Institute "research" director) were all founding members of the racist neo-Confederate 'League of the South', which advocates a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates" (much like the Mises Institute).

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

Unknown said...

Mises Institute "economist" and "historian" Thomas DiLorenzo was previously a lecturer at the racist neo-Confederate 'League of the South Institute'.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

Mises Institute "economist" Thomas E. Woods, apparent fan of slavery:

“the War Between the States, far from a conflict over mere material interests, was for the South a struggle against an atheistic individualism and an unrelenting rationalism in politics and religion, in favor of a Christian understanding of authority, social order and theology itself.”

http://web.archive.org/web/19991023114339/http:/reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/christendom.htm

Unknown said...

Mises was also a racist of course:

"It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."

Ludwig von Mises, The Market Economy, trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932), p. 297

Unknown said...

More racism from the racist Mises:

"It may be admitted that the races differ in talent and character and that there is no hope of ever seeing those differences resolved. Still, free-trade theory shows that even the more capable races derive an advantage from associating with the less capable and that social cooperation brings them the advantage of higher productivity in the total labor process".

Mises, L. von. 1951. Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (trans. J. Kahane), Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala. pp. 325-326.

Unknown said...

The Ludwig von Mises Institute... promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.

Institute scholars also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/into-the-mainstream?page=0,1

Tom Hickey said...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe's obsequious support for feudalism:

"In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers".

"Appealing to the always popular sentiment of envy, kings promised the people cheaper and better justice ....


Yes, this is the standard "right of blood" argument that aristocracy employs to distinguish between nobility and the commoners who are base-born. Just another rationale for apartheid and suppression.

It's interesting that LIbertarians are against violence but it is only by violence that a minority is able to preserve its privileged position in society.

Tom Hickey said...

@ y

Right, it's a combo of Social Darwinism, racism, and bigotry.

vimothy said...

Keynes' racist plan for Europe:

"We should encourage small political and cultural units. It would be a fine thing to have thirty or forty capital cities in Europe, each the center of a self-governing country entirely free from national minorities (who would be dealt with my migrations where necessary).”

Keynes on eugenics: ”the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.”

Keynes on the Jewish Question:

"[Jews] have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs."

And more:

"It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains."

Tom Hickey said...

vimothy Keynes' racist plan for Europe:

It would be simple to pass this off by saying that Keynes was but a man of his era. But the world is still firmly in the grip of this sort of thinking based on aversion to difference as an evolutionary trait. Evolution favors kinship.

The history of humanity can be viewed as the effort of humanity to extricate itself from such limiting and no long beneficial evolutionary traits that are actually creating a drag in new circumstances. In order to increase the the adaptability rate and return on coordination, awareness of greater universality is required, with the aim of the species manifesting is species-nature, that is, its humanity, consciously and intentional in concerted action to meet the challenges of increasing complexity.

Unknown said...

More from the demented Rothbard:

"indi­vid­u­als, eth­nic groups and races dif­fer among them­selves in intel­li­gence and many other traits, and that intel­li­gence, as well as less con­tro­ver­sial traits of tem­pera­ment, are in large part hered­i­tary.

"when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

vimothy said...

It would be simple to pass this off by saying that Keynes was but a man of his era.

It might be simple, but it would certainly be a bit strained given the above quotes from and about Mises and co!

vimothy said...

In other words, if you want to say, "Mises was a racist; therefore, libertarianism is inherently racist,", it's implies that you should also be prepared to say, "Keynes was a racist; therefore, Keynesianism is inherently racist."

Unknown said...

The aristocratic and racist Ludwig von Mises again:

"certain races have contributed nothing or very little to the development of civilization and can, in this sense, be called inferior."

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap3sec6.asp

Tom Hickey said...

vimothy, I don't think that it is of great consequence that historical figures held eccentric views unless it can shown to have affected substantially the points under discussion. Aristotle and Aquinas both wrote that slavery was the natural state of some people. That view doesn't destroy the corpus of their writings, however, and it doesn't even have much bearing on Aristotle's monetary theory of money as noumisma.

I do think that the "aristocratic" views of historical contributors to Libertarianism have bearing on their economics arguments though. For example, violence is not permitted other than in defense of private property, which is to say, in defense of privilege — the meritocracy argument being bogus historically. This seems rather evident, based on the obvious outcome of applying Libertarian principles to society, as a Rothbard quote above shows that he was well aware.

However, I'm not as sure about where Keynes's bigoted views affected either his economic analysis or his political economy. Can you point out any for me?

Unknown said...

The repugnant Rothbard:

"children were not driven to the factories with whips; they went voluntarily and gladly"

http://www.mises.org/daily/1607

"Children as young as six years old during the industrial revolution worked hard hours for little or no pay. Children sometimes worked up to 19 hours a day, with a one-hour total break.

"Many accidents occurred injuring or killing children on the job. Not until the Factory Act of 1833 did things improve.

"Children were paid only a fraction of what an adult would get, and sometimes factory owners would get away with paying them nothing. Orphans were the ones subject to this slave-like labor.

"The people who the children served would beat them, verbally abuse them, and take no consideration for their safety. Both boys and girls who worked in factories were subject to beatings and other harsh forms of pain infliction."

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

vimothy said...

The arguments about the relationship between Keynesianism and fascism and Nazism have been made so many times that there's surely no need for me to reprise them here.

vimothy said...

With that said, it's my own belief that private property is a rather arbitrary principle around which to organise society. So to advocate violence in defence of private property also seems arbitrary and unsatisfying. On the other hand, modern liberalism is not exactly inimical to this idea, while adding a few more justifications for violence that I don't find entirely satisfying either.

paul meli said...

"The arguments about the relationship between Keynesianism and fascism and Nazism have been made so many times that there's surely no need for me to reprise them here."

Fortunately, Keynesianism works without resorting to fascism, Nazism or any other ism's or at the expense of minorities or ethnic groups.

I doubt that can be said for libertarianism or free-market capitalism, which only seems to work for a small subset of the population.

Tom Hickey said...

paul Fortunately, Keynesianism works without resorting to fascism, Nazism or any other ism's or at the expense of minorities or ethnic groups.

Bob On the other hand, Keynesianism is completely at home with and can be conducted within a totalitarian nightmare state

Right, it's all about policy space. Keynesianism expands policy space and liberalism contracts it. It's all about the use of government power. Liberalism would minimize it at the expense of policy space, and Keynesianism would increase govt power by expanding at the risk of excessive govt. There are advantages and disadvantages to both positions and neither prevent takeover by the wealthy (fascism) or statists (totalitarianism). The political pendulum swings between these extremes of essentially corporatist control v. militarist control. No economic system itself can ensure freedom, equality, and community. That's up to the members of the system and the institutional arrangements they create and permit.

Tom Hickey said...

It is both theoretically and physically impossible to simultaneously have a libertarian and totalitarian society at the same time and place.

Not at all. If a small group wins the game of Monopoly™, then the government can use violence to protect their ownership right. According to Libertarian doctrine this is not initiating violence but merely opposing it. This is exactly the argument of all fascists and totalitarians, and it is the argument of Assad in Syria right now.

Tom Hickey said...

Speaking of feudalism, MMT itself is based upon the wonders of colonial enslavement (completely forbidden and utterly impossible, of course, under libertarianism), according to Warren “Hut Tax” Mosler

Simply a recognition that state money involves taxation and taxation requires enforcement. Aslong as there is government there will be taxation, and without government there is anarchy in the sense of chaos, or invitation to invasion.

Unknown said...

The repugnant Rothbard:

"Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated"

(Rothbard 1998: 82–83).


"Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

"Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

Unknown said...

The repugnant Rothbard:

"The idea that picketing is simply a method of "free expression" is ludicrous: if you want to inform a town that there's a strike, you can have just one picket, or still less invasively, take out ads in the local media. But even if there is only one picket, the question then arises: on whose property does one have the right to picket, or to convey information?... does the union have the right to picket on the sidewalk in front of a plant or of a struck firm? So far, that right has been accepted readily by the courts. But the sidewalk is usually the responsibility of the owner of the building abutting it, who must maintain it, keep it unclogged, etc. In a sense, then, the building owner also "owns" the sidewalk, and therefore the general ban on picketing on private property should also apply here."

No doubt the owner should get the police to come and beat up the strikers and make them "disappear" like those unsightly vagrants.

http://mises.org/econsense/ch37.asp

Unknown said...

The repugnant Rothbard:

"Of all the Yankee activists in behalf of statist "reform," perhaps the most formidable force was the legion of Yankee women, in particular those of middle- or upper-class background, and especially spinsters whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of home and hearth. One of the PMPs' favorite reforms was to bring about women's suffrage, which was accomplished in various states and localities long before a constitutional amendment imposed it on the entire country."

"imposed it"

http://mises.org/daily/2225#3

Tom Hickey said...

One major reason: it was obvious to everyone that, given the chance to vote, most Yankee women would be quick to troop to the ballot-box, whereas Catholic women believed their place to be at home and with the family, and would not bother about political considerations. Hence, women's suffrage was a way of weighting the total vote toward the postmillennialists and away from the Catholics and High Church Lutherans.

So this is a reason not to permit women to vote — because some won't and that will skew the election? Really?

Unknown said...

The sick Rothbard:

"the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

"Now if a parent may own his child then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children."

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N Rothbard

Matt Franko said...

y,

You're killing me!!!! ;)

Unknown said...

The racist Lew Rockwell:

Ron Paul told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" — statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr."

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Unknown said...

The WTF? Rothbard:

“The beauty of nonstate – interprivate, if you want to put it that way, warfare is that it has to be pinpointed—it has to be, in order not to commit suicide in the process—and so that the scale of weaponry has to be reduced to, say, machine-gun level.

… if you shift from State war – interstate warfare – down to private warfare, the likelihood of doing that, of pursuing this kind of libertarian non-injuring of civilians, will be greatly increased.”

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html

Unknown said...

The deranged Walter Block:

"Here's the situation. My child is gravely ill. Only an operation can save his life. But, this medical care costs $100 million, and I am a poor man... Seemingly, my only option is to witness the passing away of my beloved child. But wait! Rafe Mair, richer than Bill Gates, has for a long time wanted me to be his slave. He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him. He values this opportunity way more than the medical costs necessary to save my child's life. So, we strike a deal. Rafe gives me the $100 million, which I immediately turn over to the hospital. Then, I go to Mair's plantation, and become his slave.

Why is this so objectionable? Rafe and I both gain from this deal. I value my child's life more than my own freedom; way more. Mair values my servitude more than the costs of buying me into servitude; again, way more, let us suppose. If voluntary slavery is legal, we can consummate this financial arrangement, to our mutual gain. If not, not, to the great loss of both of us. Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

"In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery#cite_note-9

Unknown said...

Having defended brutal child slavery in the industrial revolution, the demented Rothbard then bemoans contemporary child labor laws:

"Supposedly “humanitarian” child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors."

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Anonymous said...

Y

You're the racist. Your intellectually dishonest cherry picking while providing no context shows how intellectually shallow you really are. But, from a site as confused and frankly stupid funny, I wouldn't expect anything more.

"do not argue with fools, for strangers may have difficulty telling them apart"

Anonymous said...

JK-

You're getting there. Once you see that the only peaceful path is via freedom, and that Austrians are the only ones who offer a comprehensive and consistent means of attaining that freedom, you will see the path. Good luck.

Tom Hickey said...

Anyone who thinks that any modern state is going to abandon government (and go to what?) and institute "freedom" and the free market in its place is an idiot. Any as soon as there is government there is a power center that can be hijacked. The issue of social and political philosophy is devise a political system that is efficient and effective at meaning public purpose, i.e., "the common good," or "the general welfare" of the polity. Since the inception of liberal democracy based on Enlightenment principles that has involved harmonizing liberty, egality, and community.

Bob Roddis said...

You're all arguing with a ghost. All of my posts have been completely deleted because MTTers are so insecure about their unsupportable positions that they would rather die than accept any criticisms. On orders from that misogynist Mr. Norman, I've been banned. As Mr. Norman would say, SISSIES.

Unknown said...

Some more comments from Lew Rockwell:

"State-enforced segregation was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

Lew Rockwell 1990 “The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism.”

Comments in Ron Paul's newsletters authored by the racist Lew Rockwell:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

Martin Luther King Jr. was "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Once you see that the only peaceful path is via freedom, and that Austrians are the only ones who offer a comprehensive and consistent means of attaining that freedom, you will see the path. Dale

I used to think so but the turning point for me was when I realized that most of the Austrian economists are for some sort of government privileges for gold as money which is rather hypocritical for so-called liberty lovers.

Bob Roddis said...

I used to think so but the turning point for me was when I realized that most of the Austrian economists are for some sort of government privileges for gold as money which is rather hypocritical for so-called liberty lovers.

What a load of crap. There is not one libertarian/Austrian who professes hypocritical ideas. The major criticism is that it allows for no exceptions to the rule against the initiation of force, not that there are irrational and/or ad hoc exceptions to the rule.

Unknown said...

"There is not one libertarian/Austrian who professes hypocritical ideas"


“Bob Roddis is the only candidate for Michigan Supreme Court who supports enforcement of the US Constitution.”

www.roddisforjustice.com


The US Constitution:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

"To declare War

"To raise and support Armies,

"To provide and maintain a Navy;

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,"

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution... which shall be valid as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States”

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land”


Oh well Bob, you lose again.