Opinion of unions

[Dave from Michigan]

generally positive both my parents are union members, but I'm less favorable to public sector unions.

[TNF]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

[k-onmmunist]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

[MK]

Massive FO.   I often wonder how so many people are conned by "right to work".

[SPC]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

And my have computer prices skyrocketed as a result!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

And my have computer prices skyrocketed as a result!

It's almost as if something about the nature of computers sold changes over the years.

[dead0man]

Yeah, they keep getting faster/better and cheaper.  Just like TVs.  Weird. 

Can we at least agree it was a stupid example of the horrors of capitalism?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ahh, the old argument, "Everything must be going great because the poor have more flat screen TVs than the rich did 100 years ago"

[LastVoter]

Yeah, they keep getting faster/better and cheaper.  Just like TVs.  Weird. 

Can we at least agree it was a stupid example of the horrors of capitalism?

Apple computers?

[SPC]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

And my have computer prices skyrocketed as a result!

It's almost as if something about the nature of computers sold changes over the years.

You just proved my point. If natural "monopolies" raise prices and stifle innovation, shouldn't the computer market have been as stagnant as the Post Office or the DMV?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ahh, the old argument, "Everything must be going great because the poor have more flat screen TVs than the rich did 100 years ago"

It's a funny argument, of course. Funny, as in laughable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

And my have computer prices skyrocketed as a result!

It's almost as if something about the nature of computers sold changes over the years.

You just proved my point. If natural "monopolies" raise prices and stifle innovation, shouldn't the computer market have been as stagnant as the Post Office or the DMV?

Well, no, I'm not sure that that follows, unless you start with a set of assumptions that I find distinctly, uh, odd. A valiant effort, though!

[SPC]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

And my have computer prices skyrocketed as a result!

It's almost as if something about the nature of computers sold changes over the years.

You just proved my point. If natural "monopolies" raise prices and stifle innovation, shouldn't the computer market have been as stagnant as the Post Office or the DMV?

Well, no, I'm not sure that that follows, unless you start with a set of assumptions that I find distinctly, uh, odd. A valiant effort, though!

Which assumptions do you disagree with?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

And my have computer prices skyrocketed as a result!

It's almost as if something about the nature of computers sold changes over the years.

You just proved my point. If natural "monopolies" raise prices and stifle innovation, shouldn't the computer market have been as stagnant as the Post Office or the DMV?

Well, no, I'm not sure that that follows, unless you start with a set of assumptions that I find distinctly, uh, odd. A valiant effort, though!

Which assumptions do you disagree with?

The idea that the computer industry can be compared with the Postal Service strikes me as chimerical, since what the Postal Service does is by nature fairly what-you-see-is-what-you-get (not that there's nothing about it that could possibly develop or change, obviously). It's not at all clear that the trajectory computer development would be taking wouldn't be more 'innovative', however we as a society are quantifying that, if there were more and smaller computer companies. Those are the two main ones.

I'm not even especially committed to the idea that having a few big tech companies is a bad thing on this particular level, although do I think it's bad for entirely different reasons. It's just that I didn't think your initial counterargument, or rather example for a counterargument, was very good, since we don't to the best of my knowledge have a model for what the computer industry might counterfactually have turned into were the market share more dispersed, and then I didn't think the comparisons to the Postal Service and the DMV were particularly apropos.

I do note that you haven't denied that there's a certain level of cartelization going on in this sector of the economy. That being the case, out of curiosity, is it something that you oppose?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have a positive view of unions and the accomplishments they've fought hard to win for working people.

I don't like corruption, and corruption should be rooted out of unions.

I prefer employee owned companies where each employee gets one vote in company decisions, and executives are elected by all employees.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Generally not a fan of cartels in any industry, labor being no exception.

So you're totally on board with antitrust legislation, right? Or is that too much of an infringement on the sacred right of property?

the libertarian argument, if i remember correctly, is that government created these cartels in the first place and that by withdrawing corporate welfare and letting the market have its way, there would be no oligopolies or cartels left.

i disagree, because capitalism is a naturally centralizing force with or without the hand of government. you only have to look at the comptuer market to see how rapidly a handful of companies can swallow up a vast area of business.

Yep, I couldn't agree more.  I often hear Ron Paul say that the reason the current system is such a failure is because it's actually corporatism, not capitalism.  While he is absolutely correct, what he fails to see is that capitalism leads to big business destroying the competition due to economies of scale, and then running the government.  Capitalism in other words leads to corporatism.  Does anyone think mom-and-pop stores have a chance of surviving when they have to compete with the Walmarts of the world?

Regarding unions, I am not sure what to think.  I have been a union member in two states, and while I hate paying my dues, I have to admit that without unions, working conditions and pay would have been a lot worse.
So while I am not sure what to think, having unions is obviously better than the alternative.

[SPC]

I do note that you haven't denied that there's a certain level of cartelization going on in this sector of the economy. That being the case, out of curiosity, is it something that you oppose?

True cartelization is impossible in a market economy. Even if a firm appears to have a monopoly in a certain industry, they cannot raise their prices significantly above the market price, since there always remains the threat of new firms entering the industry and profiting by offering lower prices. Thus, there is always the implicit threat of competition to prevent the development of the characteristics we typically associate with a monopoly. Even ignoring the effect of potential competitors, natural monopolies are also limited by the ability of people to reduce consumption or purchase substitute goods instead.

On the other hand, the would-be monopolist would be a lot more effective by using the power of the state to limit their potential and actual competitors. Whether this be in the form of business tax hikes and increased regulations, which increase the entry costs and thus discourages potential competitors from entering the industry despite a market inefficiency, or ironically in the form of antitrust ligitation, which decrease the time and money that their competitors can use to invest and innovate in their business while they must defend their existence before a judge rather than the desires of the marketplace, the state is a useful tool in the arsenal of a monopolist. Whether or not the computer sector is largely made up of a few companies as a result of natural market forces or coercive state regulation, I cannot say (although it is likely a combination of both). For more information on this topic, I recommend chapter 6 of The Machinery of Freedom

[dead0man]

Ahh, the old argument, "Everything must be going great because the poor have more flat screen TVs than the rich did 100 years ago"

Weird, I didn't notice this one in Xahar's straw thread.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

A necessary evil?

Nah to be serious obviously unions are needed to protect the rights of workers and are thus good. That being said most unions (at least in Sweden) are corrupt, undemocratic, power-grabbing old instititions that care more to feed their executives and advance meaningless causes than to make sure their members have a decent job.