So, Walker won the election. Will he now be indicted?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Whine whine whine, sure. But your argument was from inference, so here's my argument from inference: better working conditions tend to attract more qualified employees. Unions provide better working conditions. Therefore unionized districts tend to attract more qualified employees.

Why would better working conditions only attract better candidates?

It seems more likely to me that better working conditions attract MORE candidates, poor, mediocre, and superior alike.

If the better working conditions were combined with effective methods to winnow out poor performers, I would be more receptive to the idea that the end result is in fact a set of more qualified employees.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

not constitutionally required

Seems like a bit of a bait and a switch, given you went from this:

Originally Posted by Bricker

compelling secular reason

If it's constitutionally permitted and serves the general welfare (a compelling secular reason to support it, IMO), what reason do you have to oppose such legislation?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Why would better working conditions only attract better candidates?

Academic environments with a higher cadre of teachers will perform better, attracting more funding, increasing the working conditions and attracting more teachers. Those with poor funding and a low cadre of teachers will attract fewer teachers and there will be less competition for each place.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Seems like a bit of a bait and a switch, given you went from this:



If it's constitutionally permitted and serves the general welfare (a compelling secular reason to support it, IMO), what reason do you have to oppose such legislation?

I notice you quote only snippets of sentences from my previous posts, and don't include the links to those posts.

Why is that?

Academic environments with a higher cadre of teachers will perform better, attracting more funding, increasing the working conditions and attracting more teachers. Those with poor funding and a low cadre of teachers will attract fewer teachers and there will be less competition for each place.

My argument is that without a way to remove lower-performing teachers, you'll never achieve that "higher cadre" in the first place.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Why is that?

I quote using BBCode rather than the forum button. I quote relevant segments. If you think I've missed context, feel free to explain why.

Originally Posted by Bricker

My argument is that without a way to remove lower-performing teachers, you'll never achieve that "higher cadre" in the first place.

Well, one method would be not hiring them in the first place. Teachers can be fired for cause, too.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I quote using BBCode rather than the forum button. I quote relevant segments. If you think I've missed context, feel free to explain why.

Ok.

Herre's where I started:

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nonsense. I don't have to craft my opponent's arguments for him. I responded to a claim that I should follow a certain social policy because the Bible encourages it. I responded that Bible commands are not a valid basis for laws in this country.

You seemingly want me to imagine a corresponding secular interest, accept that interest uncritically, and then accept that this interest is an equally valid basis for the proposed policy.

Um... no.

If you, or anyone else, feels there's some compelling secular reason to enact some policy, trot it out and I'll consider it. But it's not bad faith to fail to be convinced by arguments that haven't been made under the crazy theory that I should invent those arguments and then be convinced by them.

So that's the question: I am asking for a non-religiously-based argument that compels me to accept a given social policy.

You offer the compelling secular reason that feeding people is legally required, by the constitution and the Declaration of Independence:

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Compelling secular reason to ensure the poor in a country have enough to eat and a place to sleep?

In order to properly afford them their constitutionally protected rights (to assemble, speak, etc.), the state should ensure the people should remain alive. There's a pretty good correlation between not eating and dying. Also, there's justification in the declaration of independence: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

I refute that by pointing out that the Declaration is not a source of substantive law and quoting the caselaw that rebuts the idea that the Constitution's free speech or assembly clauses require any such thing.

You then offer the general welfare clause as a source of the compelling secular reason:

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

General welfare clause then.

And I rebut that:

Originally Posted by Bricker

No, for the reasons laid out in US v Butler.

Then you ask:

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, they are constitutional, but not constitutionally required.

At which point you suggest I have switched standards, quoting only the bare snippets of the above posts in your statement. But as you can see, the question was never if any such programs are permissible, but if there is a compelling secular reason to require them. Sure, Social Security is constitutional. But it's not required, which means you have not identified a compelling secular reason for it. The tiny two-word snippets you quoted completely obscured the distinction.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Well, one method would be not hiring them in the first place. Teachers can be fired for cause, too.

Firing for cause is not the same as firing for being mediocre. To leave only the highest performing teachers in place, you would have to be able to reliably remove the less-well-performing; it is that very ability which unions strenuously oppose.

It's true that not hiring low performers in the first place could also accomplish that goal, but there is no reliable way to consistently choose effective teachers aead of time. Promising candidates may not pan out; diamonds in the rough may be missed. This is true in all professions.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Firing for cause is not the same as firing for being mediocre. To leave only the highest performing teachers in place, you would have to be able to reliably remove the less-well-performing; it is that very ability which unions strenuously oppose.

This sounds remarkably like you expect all teachers to be above average. What am I missing?

The policy should set a minimum standard for retaining one's job as a teacher, and of course some teachers will be at this minimum standard, whatever it is, and will thereby retain their job. We should figure out what that minimum standard should be and act accordingly.

Why would better working conditions only attract better candidates?

It seems more likely to me that better working conditions attract MORE candidates, poor, mediocre, and superior alike.

Better working conditions would attract more candidates, of course. Assuming the administrator attempts to hire the best available person for the job, attracting more poor candidates is irrelevant; they'll get trashed along with the current poor candidates.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

This sounds remarkably like you expect all teachers to be above average. What am I missing?

I expect that the teachers retained would be a subset of all teachers seeking jobs. And I expect that set of teachers retained would in fact be above the average of all teachers seeking jobs, yes.

The policy should set a minimum standard for retaining one's job as a teacher, and of course some teachers will be at this minimum standard, whatever it is, and will thereby retain their job. We should figure out what that minimum standard should be and act accordingly.

Sure. I agree completely.

But that's not how it works.

Better working conditions would attract more candidates, of course. Assuming the administrator attempts to hire the best available person for the job, attracting more poor candidates is irrelevant; they'll get trashed along with the current poor candidates.

If unions were willing to remove poor teachers, yes.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I expect that the teachers retained would be a subset of all teachers seeking jobs. And I expect that set of teachers retained would in fact be above the average of all teachers seeking jobs, yes.

Well, sure--but every profession will have mediocre employees. There are mediocre doctors, attorneys, software engineers, custodians, and restaurant managers, and overwhelmingly they keep their jobs. Like the joke says, you know what you call the guy who graduates at the bottom of his medical class, right? Doctor. It's a nice idea that we should get rid of mediocre teachers, but I don't think it's realistic. (And believe me: if I could, I totally would.)

But that's not how it works.

If unions were willing to remove poor teachers, yes.

I have a similar problem with attorneys--why aren't defense attorneys willing to abandon sleazy clients?

It is, of course, because their job is to represent their clients. When a defense attorney's defense of a client results in a not-guilty verdict, a sane person doesn't blame the defense attorney, they blame the inadequate prosecution.

Similarly, it's ridiculous to look at a pervy old man who's kept his teaching job and blame the union for that. The fault is with the administration that's so incompetent they can't even fire a guy like that. The union who defends him is doing its job of representing its members. In this case, the job is every bit as distasteful as would be the job of the defense attorney who defends him from criminal charges, but in both cases, the job's existence is part of the system we have in place. If you cut down the forest to get the devil, as you're fond of quoting, where will we hide when the devil turns on us?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You then offer the general welfare clause as a source of the compelling secular reason:

I suppose we just took divergent views on the purpose of that reference. I think government provided social insurance fulfils a secular purpose in that it promotes the general welfare (compare the life expectancy of states with and without government provided social insurance). I don't think something needs to be explicitly enumerated in the constitution in order for there to be a compelling secular interest for it (or if there is, then demonstrating a compelling secular interest is an insurmountable obstacle to supporting most legislation).

For example, do you think there's a compelling secular interest in requiring voter ID?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I suppose we just took divergent views on the purpose of that reference. I think government provided social insurance fulfils a secular purpose in that it promotes the general welfare (compare the life expectancy of states with and without government provided social insurance). I don't think something needs to be explicitly enumerated in the constitution in order for there to be a compelling secular interest for it (or if there is, then demonstrating a compelling secular interest is an insurmountable obstacle to supporting most legislation).

For example, do you think there's a compelling secular interest in requiring voter ID?

Like your other examples, Voter ID is permissible, but not mandated.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I have a similar problem with attorneys--why aren't defense attorneys willing to abandon sleazy clients?

It is, of course, because their job is to represent their clients. When a defense attorney's defense of a client results in a not-guilty verdict, a sane person doesn't blame the defense attorney, they blame the inadequate prosecution.

I don't agree that's the proper role for unions... or in the alternative, if it is, then I don't agree with the laws that have permitted unions to amass sufficient power to exert their will so successfully. In much the same way, I might say that defense attorneys should continue to zealously represent every client, but a proposed rule that the prosecution turn over recordings of every witness prep be scuttled, because that rule would give the defense too much advantage at trial.

Defense attorneys have a special place in the justice system became we, as a society, have agreed to it. If we have agreed that unions have an analogous place, to zealously defend their members' interests no matter what, I say we need to rethink that.

And of course, going after public sector unions is doing just that.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Like your other examples, Voter ID is permissible, but not mandated.

Do you think there's a compelling secular reason for supporting it, or is a compelling secular interest only requisite for legislation proposed by liberals?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Do you think there's a compelling secular reason for supporting it, or is a compelling secular interest only requisite for legislation proposed by liberals?

Once again, let's not lose track of what those words meant when I said them:

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nonsense. I don't have to craft my opponent's arguments for him. I responded to a claim that I should follow a certain social policy because the Bible encourages it. I responded that Bible commands are not a valid basis for laws in this country.

You seemingly want me to imagine a corresponding secular interest, accept that interest uncritically, and then accept that this interest is an equally valid basis for the proposed policy.

Um... no.

If you, or anyone else, feels there's some compelling secular reason to enact some policy, trot it out and I'll consider it. But it's not bad faith to fail to be convinced by arguments that haven't been made under the crazy theory that I should invent those arguments and then be convinced by them.

If I can imagine the compelling secular reason on my own, I clearly don't need anyone to follow those steps. So it's not to liberals that I direct that challenge, but to anyone who proposes a given policy for which I don't see a valid basis. Naturally, since I am a conservative, I expect liberals will enjoy more scrutiny under this approach.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't agree that's the proper role for unions... or in the alternative, if it is, then I don't agree with the laws that have permitted unions to amass sufficient power to exert their will so successfully. In much the same way, I might say that defense attorneys should continue to zealously represent every client, but a proposed rule that the prosecution turn over recordings of every witness prep be scuttled, because that rule would give the defense too much advantage at trial.

Defense attorneys have a special place in the justice system became we, as a society, have agreed to it. If we have agreed that unions have an analogous place, to zealously defend their members' interests no matter what, I say we need to rethink that.

And of course, going after public sector unions is doing just that.

Society has agreed to having a place for unions to defend their members' interests as well. The extent to which society has turned against union membership correlates with a greater share of wealth, generally speaking, going to a smaller subset of the population, and a deleterious effect, on the whole, on the economy at large.

The video is from the Economic Policy Institute. It's only a minute and a half long. The chart describes one possible measure by which this effect is illustrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYOedwIjMU

Now, in an economy still weak due in no small part to lack of demand, and a great deal of wealth sitting idle in hedge funds, Swiss bank accounts, and blind trusts , what purpose would tearing down the already anemic (by 20th century standards) union structure in America serve, if we posit that the effect on the amount of wealth going to the wealthy; i.e, the amount of wealth being drawn away from the poor and middle classes, will show a similarly direct correlation?

And yes, I am arguing a 'zero sum game', in that the amount of total wealth does not increase without labor being performed on the land, since labor in and of itself has such barriers to market entry that it is dependent on the investor class who, for all intents and purposes, owns all the land. So no 'bigger pie' arguments, please.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Defense attorneys have a special place in the justice system became we, as a society, have agreed to it. If we have agreed that unions have an analogous place, to zealously defend their members' interests no matter what, I say we need to rethink that.

Why don't you think it's okay for unions to defend their members' interests no matter what, but it is okay for defense attorneys to do the same? I don't belong, technically, to a union, but I do belong to a professional association, and part of my dues serve as liability insurance: if I'm accused of malfeasance, I know that an organization rep will be there to represent me. What's wrong with that?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

Society has agreed to having a place for unions to defend their members' interests as well. The extent to which society has turned against union membership correlates with a greater share of wealth, generally speaking, going to a smaller subset of the population, and a deleterious effect, on the whole, on the economy at large.

The video is from the Economic Policy Institute. It's only a minute and a half long. The chart describes one possible measure by which this effect is illustrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYOedwIjMU

Now, in an economy still weak due in no small part to lack of demand, and a great deal of wealth sitting idle in hedge funds, Swiss bank accounts, and blind trusts , what purpose would tearing down the already anemic (by 20th century standards) union structure in America serve, if we posit that the effect on the amount of wealth going to the wealthy; i.e, the amount of wealth being drawn away from the poor and middle classes, will show a similarly direct correlation?

And yes, I am arguing a 'zero sum game', in that the amount of total wealth does not increase without labor being performed on the land, since labor in and of itself has such barriers to market entry that it is dependent on the investor class who, for all intents and purposes, owns all the land. So no 'bigger pie' arguments, please.

That video seems to presuppose that "income inequality" is a bad thing.

Why? Not everyone is as essential to the creation of wealth as everyone else. Steve Jobs was the factor in Apple's meteoric rise, even though hundreds of developers spent thousands of hours working to bring Apple's products to market. And drivers were needed to drive the trucks that delivered iPods to stores. But any of those drivers could have been replaced by someone else and Apple still would succeed; remove Steve Jobs and Apple doesn't.

Screw that complaint about income inequality. Income should be a function of your market value, not anything else.

Needless to say, I also reject your zero sum game.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Why don't you think it's okay for unions to defend their members' interests no matter what, but it is okay for defense attorneys to do the same? I don't belong, technically, to a union, but I do belong to a professional association, and part of my dues serve as liability insurance: if I'm accused of malfeasance, I know that an organization rep will be there to represent me. What's wrong with that?

Because defense attorneys contend against the power of the state. The state itself creates defense attorney and defines their role, with the purpose of creating a system that ameliorates state power to arrest and convict. In other words, the conflict between the accused and the state is not voluntary, not freely entered into.

As between the union and the employer, however, it should be. But this balance is upset when the law carves out areas of advantage to the union. This is not a good use of state power, in my view.

[gamerunknown]

Here's the reason I referred to.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Screw that complaint about income inequality. Income should be a function of your market value, not anything else.

Do you think market values are accurately represented given state interference in economic decisions? Do you think CEOs have increased in value disproportionately to their workers and are now worth over three hundred times the amount of their workers? Do you think a Bangladeshi child performing the same task as an American adult is worth some pitiful fraction of the American adult?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Because defense attorneys contend against the power of the state. The state itself creates defense attorney and defines their role, with the purpose of creating a system that ameliorates state power to arrest and convict. In other words, the conflict between the accused and the state is not voluntary, not freely entered into.

As between the union and the employer, however, it should be.

First, that seems like a general argument against legal protections for unions--I'm not seeing what it has to do with the evils of a union's protection of its members.

Second, however, the problem with your analysis is that it ignores the theoretical and actual power differential between employer and employee. We as a society have decided to ameliorate this differential through various measures--allowing union organizing, instituting a minimum wage, requiring overtime pay, etc.--because without such limits, many people were getting absolutely screwed by employers, even in semi-voluntary circumstances.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That video seems to presuppose that "income inequality" is a bad thing.

Why? Not everyone is as essential to the creation of wealth as everyone else. Steve Jobs was the factor in Apple's meteoric rise, even though hundreds of developers spent thousands of hours working to bring Apple's products to market. And drivers were needed to drive the trucks that delivered iPods to stores. But any of those drivers could have been replaced by someone else and Apple still would succeed; remove Steve Jobs and Apple doesn't.

Screw that complaint about income inequality. Income should be a function of your market value, not anything else.

Needless to say, I also reject your zero sum game.

Income inequality, taken too far, is a bad thing. My cite is the current economy. The more wealth that is concentrated in a few hands, the less wealth there is in the hands of the masses. And when that happens, there is less aggregate demand for everything except the most inelastic of goods. Do you dispute this?

Your argument is symptomatic of the stereotypical conservative's binary view that, liberals argue for exact renumeration for everyone. That is not what is being argued here. The argument is that if too many have too little, there will be no one able to consume goods no matter how much you incentivize supply. A good businessman is not going to produce one widget nor employ one person more than required if tax rates -- a mere percentage of profit or revenue that the entrepreneur is able to pass along to the consumer!-- are too high.

Now, instead of merely taking a percentage of the profits, let's eliminate the very source of revenue itself, the consumer, through their own lack of revenue due to the a lack of an incentive to pay them, and extrapolate from there.

And Bricker--I never took you to be someone to argue for printing more money. So... why do you reject the zero sum argument again? Protip: poor people don't start businesses, and making poor people out of the middle class, which you will do without either printing more money or installing some leveling mechanism, means fewer businesses will be started. And if the corporate class, the C-blank-Os and the very uppermost management (and of course, attorneys) are the only ones we as a society choose to consider as having a right to more than subsistence wages, well... we're in zugzwang.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Here's the reason I referred to.



Do you think market values are accurately represented given state interference in economic decisions? Do you think CEOs have increased in value disproportionately to their workers and are now worth over three hundred times the amount of their workers? Do you think a Bangladeshi child performing the same task as an American adult is worth some pitiful fraction of the American adult?

I think the American adult is probably getting overpaid, actually. Labor, like grain, #4 hex nuts, and laundry detergent, are worth what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller. Labor should not be priced by someone's determination of what rate people need. It should be priced by what rate people are willing to pay.

In my opinion, of course.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

Income inequality, taken too far, is a bad thing. My cite is the current economy. The more wealth that is concentrated in a few hands, the less wealth there is in the hands of the masses. And when that happens, there is less aggregate demand for everything except the most inelastic of goods. Do you dispute this?

No -- because, once again, you offer up a zero sum game, as though "wealth" were a fixed number of gold coins, and if we concentrate those coins in a few hands, there are obviously not as many left to spread around to the masses.

I contend that wealth is the result of applying work to resources. Allowing person with ability to reap the rewards of their ability creates an environment in which more wealth is created -- the total amount of wealth in the system increases. Yes, it's true that the guy who figured out how to build a better mousetrap gets much more wealth than his laborers who simply assemble the pieces according to his design. But all of them ultimately benefit, because the world which before had scrap lumber, springs, and pins sitting around (value=small) now has highly effective mousetraps (value=large). Or, in other words, the number of gold coins in the world has magically increased.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

It should be priced by what rate people are willing to pay.

Do you think there's a possibility of systemic class privilege which'd allow inflation in executive remuneration? Or is it only working class adults which're overpaid?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Allowing person with ability to reap the rewards of their ability creates an environment in which more wealth is created

Except you think wage labour, on average, imputes more than the reward of a person's ability and thus that a surplus of executive labour must be expended in order to subsidise such wages?

Originally Posted by Bricker

you offer up a zero sum game, as though "wealth" were a fixed number of gold coins

If wealth were not a zero sum game, then surely the maxim "to each according to need" could generally be applied?

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No -- because, once again, you offer up a zero sum game, as though "wealth" were a fixed number of gold coins, and if we concentrate those coins in a few hands, there are obviously not as many left to spread around to the masses.

I contend that wealth is the result of applying work to resources. Allowing person with ability to reap the rewards of their ability creates an environment in which more wealth is created -- the total amount of wealth in the system increases. Yes, it's true that the guy who figured out how to build a better mousetrap gets much more wealth than his laborers who simply assemble the pieces according to his design. But all of them ultimately benefit, because the world which before had scrap lumber, springs, and pins sitting around (value=small) now has highly effective mousetraps (value=large). Or, in other words, the number of gold coins in the world has magically increased.

You still seem to be laboring under the apprehension that I am arguing for the same, or even similar, compensation for the inventor, the CEO (by the way, that Venn diagram has a union about as small as my Herman Cain '16 bumper sticker business has of going Fortune 500), and the janitor. To the extent you frame your responses in those terms, that is the extent to which you reveal your reliance on stock arguments and not on analysis in good faith.

I submit that what you posit as an environment where people with ability are able to reap rewards exists right now. The power of the union is at a low ebb in this country. Wage pressure is nil. As I mentioned earlier, tax rates are infinitesimal.

So, we're in economic ice cream, right?

As we know, the amount of resources in the world is fixed. Moreover, surely not even you could deny that a great deal of capital is owned by a limited number of players. And those players do not have an incentive (in this country), despite historically low taxation, to work more on resources and increase your mythical pile of gold coins. Why should they? The marginal utility of an additional dollar... or million... for a billionaire is approximately ...lemme see... carry the two... chicken feed.

So... if the people who own the resources won't produce at optimal conditions for them, whither comes the incentive to do the work on resources? It's all well and good if small business (real small business, not hedge fund managers crying on CNBC) did have the ability to expand, but they cannot. Because no one has any dollars to spend. Because there is no one to resist the trend toward real wages spiraling ever downward as a share of the total economy while corporate profits and executive salaries soar.

That is why unions are necessary. That is why their weakening, as shown in my cite, dovetails with the stagnation of wages. That is why Walker, though he will not be indicted, should have been recalled.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Do you think there's a possibility of systemic class privilege which'd allow inflation in executive remuneration? Or is it only working class adults which're overpaid?

Anyone whose wage is a result of something other than a freely reached agreement is, in my view, potentially overpaid. Put another way, we should have no confidence in the wage, price, or consideration that is procured by anything other than free agreement.

Except you think wage labour, on average, imputes more than the reward of a person's ability and thus that a surplus of executive labour must be expended in order to subsidise such wages?

Does this mean: I think a laborer's wages are too high and they are covered, so to speak, by drawing from an executive's labor?

Again, I say we have no confidence in any wage not determined by free agreement.

If wealth were not a zero sum game, then surely the maxim "to each according to need" could generally be applied?

Why so? The statement does not imply unlimited wealth. It simply means that the amount of wealth is not fixed. It increases as people apply work and innovation to resources. But how in the world does that imply that society should adopt a policy that allocates wealth at all, much less assigns wealth to anyone without regard for the role the recipient had in producing it?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

You still seem to be laboring under the apprehension that I am arguing for the same, or even similar, compensation for the inventor, the CEO (by the way, that Venn diagram has a union about as small as my Herman Cain '16 bumper sticker business has of going Fortune 500), and the janitor. To the extent you frame your responses in those terms, that is the extent to which you reveal your reliance on stock arguments and not on analysis in good faith.

I submit that what you posit as an environment where people with ability are able to reap rewards exists right now. The power of the union is at a low ebb in this country. Wage pressure is nil. As I mentioned earlier, tax rates are infinitesimal.

So, we're in economic ice cream, right?

Low ebb, perhaps, but by no means trivial. Union "contracts" still dominate the manufacturing sector in the US. We have a minimum wage that sets a floor without regard for what the actual value of the labor might be.

As we know, the amount of resources in the world is fixed.

In a sense, yes. But in 1800, you could have made the same argument, and never counted oil as a resource. Indeed, oil was a bad piece of news, a way to ruin land. No one regarded oil as a valuable resource.

Fast forward a couple hundred years. Did the amount of resources in the world increase? I say it did, in the sense that oil, then regarded as a nuisance, is now valuable.

What changed was our innovation. What changed was a smart guy named Jean Lenoir, who figured out how to engineer a design that made use of refined oil.

Resources are not fixed in any meaningful sense.

Moreover, surely not even you could deny that a great deal of capital is owned by a limited number of players. And those players do not have an incentive (in this country), despite historically low taxation, to work more on resources and increase your mythical pile of gold coins. Why should they? The marginal utility of an additional dollar... or million... for a billionaire is approximately ...lemme see... carry the two... chicken feed.

Sez you. In fact, they do. People like Carnegie, Rockefeller, DuPont, all increased the pile of coins.



[qute]That is why unions are necessary. That is why their weakening, as shown in my cite, dovetails with the stagnation of wages. That is why Walker, though he will not be indicted, should have been recalled.[/quote]

I do not agree. And thank goodness neither did the voters of Wisconsin.

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/a...a4bcf887a.html

Walker administration playing fast and loose with economic development money.

Feds slam state over funds for economic development

The criticisms target both the Department of Administration, which oversees the CDBG economic development program, and the public-private Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. created by Gov. Scott Walker, that runs it.

***snip***


Marquis also said the agency is “carefully reviewing” records of the withdrawal of $8.6 million in CDBG funds by a former WEDC controller on Dec. 27 reportedly to pay for projects in 2011. HUD said the transfer was made “without any approval from DOA.”

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/a...a4bcf887a.html

Walker administration playing fast and loose with economic development money.

Feds slam state over funds for economic development

Where's that Walker indictment that was supposedly coming any day now back in April?

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...173161521.html

The subpoena was sent to Walker's lawyer Friday, according to a court document. The subpoena orders Walker to show up Oct. 16 for the trial of Kelly M. Rindfleisch.

She stands accused of four felony misconduct charges of doing campaign work while at her job in Milwaukee County as deputy chief of staff to Walker in 2010. At that time, Walker was Milwaukee County executive and a Republican candidate for governor. Her charges grew from a two-year secret John Doe investigation that's focused on former aides and associates of Walker.

We can assume he will be asked whether he ordered her to work on his campaign on county time. If he doesn't take the fifth, (and doesn't get the subpoena quashed) then either prosecutor has nothing or we should know soon after if he was sandbagging Walker and has other witnesses against him. The trial starts October 15 and I'd imagine Walker would be called within a week. So, we should know one way or the other by the 26th or 29th.

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscons...173421011.html

Walker won't have to testify in the Kelly Rindfleisch case. She's agreed to cop a plea.

Walker's attorney was getting ready to go to court to quash the subpoena.

Kelly Rindfleisch, a former top aide to Gov. Scott Walker accused of misconduct in office, has reached a tentative deal with prosecutors in which she will plead guilty to at least one felony, sources close to the case said Tuesday.

Now the question is whether she will agree to testify against her former boss. Maybe not.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No -- because, once again, you offer up a zero sum game, as though "wealth" were a fixed number of gold coins, and if we concentrate those coins in a few hands, there are obviously not as many left to spread around to the masses.

At any given point in time, "wealth" is indeed a "fixed number of gold coins". In fact, you obliquely acknowledge that in your next paragraph (bolded by me).

Originally Posted by Bricker

I contend that wealth is the result of applying work to resources. Allowing person with ability to reap the rewards of their ability creates an environment in which more wealth is created -- the total amount of wealth in the system increases. Yes, it's true that the guy who figured out how to build a better mousetrap gets much more wealth than his laborers who simply assemble the pieces according to his design. But all of them ultimately benefit, because the world which before had scrap lumber, springs, and pins sitting around (value=small) now has highly effective mousetraps (value=large). Or, in other words, the number of gold coins in the world has magically increased.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

At any given point in time, "wealth" is indeed a "fixed number of gold coins". In fact, you obliquely acknowledge that in your next paragraph (bolded by me).

He says exactly the opposite, and I'm having trouble seeing how you're reading otherwise: either you're not clear on what "fixed" means in this context, or you're not clear on what "magically" means, are my best guesses.

"Fixed" in this context doesn't mean "discrete": it means "unable to be altered" (i.e., the same meaning as in veterinary clinics). There is a discrete number of people on earth right now, but not a fixed number of people.

"Magically" is being used sarcastically.

If there's some other misunderstanding, I don't know what it is.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

He says exactly the opposite, and I'm having trouble seeing how you're reading otherwise: either you're not clear on what "fixed" means in this context, or you're not clear on what "magically" means, are my best guesses.

"Fixed" in this context doesn't mean "discrete": it means "unable to be altered" (i.e., the same meaning as in veterinary clinics). There is a discrete number of people on earth right now, but not a fixed number of people.

"Magically" is being used sarcastically.

If there's some other misunderstanding, I don't know what it is.

Yes, I understand that "magically" was being used sarcastically; it doesn't alter the fact that Bricker acknowledges that the amount of wealth on the planet does, in fact, increase over time (with effort, of course).

And that doesn't change the fact that at any given point in time the amount of wealth on the planet (the "number of gold coins") is fixed (yes, meaning "discrete").

His attempt to refute Enfant's position falls flat, because at any given point in time, there is, in fact, a limited amount of wealth, and if that becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, then, in fact, at that time, there are not as many left to spread around to the masses.

The fact that the ultimate number can (and does) change over time doesn't alter the fact that at any given point in time, "wealth" is in fact a zero sum game.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Yes, I understand that "magically" was being used sarcastically; it doesn't alter the fact that Bricker acknowledges that the amount of wealth on the planet does, in fact, increase over time (with effort, of course).

And that doesn't change the fact that at any given point in time the amount of wealth on the planet (the "number of gold coins") is fixed (yes, meaning "discrete").

His attempt to refute Enfant's position falls flat, because at any given point in time, there is, in fact, a limited amount of wealth, and if that becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, then, in fact, at that time, there are not as many left to spread around to the masses.

The fact that the ultimate number can (and does) change over time doesn't alter the fact that at any given point in time, "wealth" is in fact a zero sum game.

By that definition of zero sum game, there's no such thing as a game with points that's a non-zero-sum game. Basketball is a zero sum game by that definition, since at any moment, there's a discrete number of points in play.

That's not what zero sum game means.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

By that definition of zero sum game, there's no such thing as a game with points that's a non-zero-sum game.

There are games with points that don't involve direct competition: attempting to reach a threshold faster than another player (such as in Tetris) doesn't involve direct competition. In basketball there are resources to be competed for and the opponents control over the ball means one can not score (which could be a metaphor for the means of production).

That's not what zero sum game means.

Yes, perhaps it is inaccurate to claim it as a zero sum game. It is a competitive game where a gain in excess of one's labour implies a corresponding loss in labour elsewhere, though the products of labour can also be disposed of in other means (and increasing labour efficiency means there is an ever increasing product of average socially useful labour).

[mkecane]

Last night was a good night for me personally, but I am disappointed that the Republicans have regained the state Senate, and therefore control of the Assembly and of course governor. With a handful of the major things that they did in 2010/11 getting held up by the courts, maybe they'll be slower to move on things. It's funny how Wisconsin elected Tammy Baldwin and Obama, but also gave the Republicans state control again. I understand how, but it's still a strange state.

In the last 2 years, we've voted out a progressive senator for a tea party senator; voted for Walker, recalled Walker, and then voted for him again; voted for Obama for the 2nd time; voted for the first openly gay US Senator; and a conservative state government.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by mkecane

It's funny how Wisconsin elected Tammy Baldwin and Obama, but also gave the Republicans state control again. I understand how, but it's still a strange state.

Given the gerrymandering, the Republicans regaining control of the State Senate was almost inevitable.

This, BTW, is the current state of the investigation:

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...review-620.jpg


http://host.madison.com/news/local/g...9bb2963f4.html

Rindfleisch, 44, was sentenced Monday to six months in jail for doing illegal campaign work out of Walker's Milwaukee County executive office on behalf of former state Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, when Davis ran for lieutenant governor in 2010.

**Snip**

Davis also has not been charged. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said Tuesday it will be up to him to decide whether charges would be filed against the former lawmaker, who now runs the state's Medicaid program for Walker. State law requires that officials charged with misconduct be tried in the county where they live.

Ozanne said he has not received a criminal referral from Landgraf, and he declined to discuss the secret ongoing probe in Milwaukee County. Email and phone messages left with Davis' office at the Department of Health Services were not returned Tuesday.

I suppose this kind of thing probably goes on every day in most states, but Wisconsin has long had a clean government ideal that has been (mostly) maintained for over 110 years. Wisconsinites take this sort of thing seriously.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Where's that Walker indictment that was supposedly coming any day now back in April?

So. By what date would you expect an indictment against Walker?

By what date would you concede that it's simply not going to happen?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So. By what date would you expect an indictment against Walker?

By what date would you concede that it's simply not going to happen?

I would think if he gets out of office, it probably won't happen.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I would think if he gets out of office, it probably won't happen.

Yes, and I agree.

But the truth is that the tone of this thread was a bit more ....er.... gleefully anticipatory. I, at least, got the sense that it was in part a sort of ameliorative reaction to the election result: sure, Walker may have avoided removal via recall, but will he now be indicted?

If Walker serves out his term and then leaves, with an indictment never happening, that would -- in my imagination, anyway -- be an unwelcome rebuttal to the OP.

[Enuma Elish]

Investigation closed.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...194194091.html

Wisconsin Democratic spokesman shows his unhinged insanity:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/194349641.html

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by Enuma Elish

Wisconsin Democratic spokesman shows his unhinged insanity:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/194349641.html

And was imediatly called on it by fellow democrat Tom Barrett.

The tweets brought strong criticism from Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who has twice lost to Walker in gubernatorial contests.

"The mayor said, 'Way over the top and very inappropriate,'" said Patrick Curley, chief of staff to Barrett.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It's a fair topic for discussion this week and you fucking know it.

What kind of topic for discussion is it now, BrainGlutton?

Just like that, the lengthy John Doe investigation into Gov. Scott Walker's aides and associates is over.

Nearly three years after the probe was launched, retired Appeals Court Judge Neal Nettesheim signed an order shutting down the secret investigation.

[Chronos]

What kind of topic for discussion is it now, BrainGlutton?

Yeah, it's such a shame how BrainGlutton just won't shut up about this now.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yeah, it's such a shame how BrainGlutton just won't shut up about this now.

I know. Such interest at one time, and now it seems to have vanished.

I wonder why.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

His attempt to refute Enfant's position falls flat, because at any given point in time, there is, in fact, a limited amount of wealth, and if that becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, then, in fact, at that time, there are not as many left to spread around to the masses.

You're comparing two things that can't be compared. First you are looking at a single point in time and saying at that particular point in time there is a discrete number of coins, a limited amount of wealth. That's fine. But then you go and say that there's a potential problem with that if it "becomes concentrated in the hands of the few". (emphasis mine)

Your "becomes" has time time turned on and can't be compared to a single frozen point of time.