Hypocrisy of The Left

[The Coup]

I thought I made that pretty clear in the previous posts.

I am saying let the market decide the wage, but top up the incomes of people who are not earning enough to live on.

Taxpayers subsidising businesses for wages. IPA shill promotes corporate interests, stop the presses!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The same thing that stops them from fixing prices on everything else, competition.

And if businesses worked together to keep wages low? The idea of collective bargaining goes both ways, you know. Both sides, the employer and the employee, are looking for benefit. The employer wants to keep their overheads and such to a minimum while still making money, and the employee wants to make a living and ideally have a bit left over to squirrel away.

Just as employees band together in a union ("together, united, we'll never be defeated!" as the chant goes, right?) if employers did the same for the benefit of wage-fixing or whatever - what's to stop them? As employers they hold the balance of power. If workers can't get a good deal anywhere, what then?

'Wage migration' is a pain in the arse. Shopping yourself around gets to be a grind.

The system MUST benefit both parties. Of course employers can't get shafted at every turn by the unions. By the same token employees must get looked after as inflation and the cost of living rises. Where is the happy medium?

 

[The Coup]

If employers were capable of providing even poverty level (not quite slavery level) wages and conditions under a capitalist (exploitative i.e. a system that allows people to earn money from other peoples effort), the union movement would never have existed.

Thanks capitalists for being such greedy childish shits, that us serfs were forced to figure out the cheat code.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If employers were capable of providing even poverty level (not quite slavery level) wages and conditions under a capitalist (exploitative i.e. a system that allows people to earn money from other peoples effort), the union movement would never have existed.
Thanks capitalists for being such greedy childish shits, that us serfs were forced to figure out the cheat code.

"Cheat code". I like it Cartelism - that's the word I was looking for.

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

In economics, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics...

Dosen't say anything about wages there, but along with fixing other things, why wouldn't employers try to fix wages as low as they could? Unless some sort of dastardly regulation prevented it...

 

[pokerspiv]

...
You know why we have a law, making price fixing illegal?

Not really, no. What egregious examples of price fixing in Australian history is it meant to prevent?

 

[pokerspiv]

Just as employees band together in a union ("together, united, we'll never be defeated!" as the chant goes, right?) if employers did the same for the benefit of wage-fixing or whatever - what's to stop them?

The same thing that stopped unions from doing it - holdouts. (or scabs, as unions call them)

It's extremely unlikely that all businesses in the same industry will agree. It just doesn't happen that often. In the same way, it is infinitesimally unlikely that every single person agrees with all union demands. That's why unions used to go around beating up people who wouldn't join, and blackmailed employers into not using non-union labour so that they could maintain their monopoly position.

Back in days past, shop owners with powerful connections would also go around sabotaging businesses who undercut them etc. Both actions by the unions and the criminal shopkeepers are already illegal, no need for more laws in that area.

In modern times price fixing is quite rare - it's only possible when there are barriers to entry to competition. For example, Qantas and Ansett used to fix prices on routes where they had monopolies (mostly domestic routes and selected international routes). But they were only able to do so because of government regulations that prevented other airlines from competing with them. Those regulations were relaxed and other players entered the market. As a result air travel in Australia is now about 1/5th the price it was 20-30 years ago.

Can any of you guys come up with a single example of price fixing that is still going on, that doesn't involve government intervention?

 

[skilts]

Not really, no. What egregious examples of price fixing in Australian history is it meant to prevent?

A more appropriate question to ask would be what price fixing has it prevented. The answer is: none. For twenty-odd years the concrete and quarrying industries in Australia were run as a closed shop cartel, by the four major suppliers. Their Sales Managers held a meeting in Boral's Head Office, in St Kilda Road, every month, to dole out the contracts, on the basis of the market share each wished to maintain. This conduct cost Australian consumers tens of billions of dollars on every house, factory, office building, shopping centre and road constructed during this period. I look forward to a thorough examination of this at the Royal Commission. For this reason alone, it was worthwhile for the government to give the Commissioner an extension of time. I should warn those on these boards that I'll be holding my breath for this to happen, so if you don't hear from me for a while, send in the paramedics.

 

[The Coup]

The same thing that stopped unions from doing it - holdouts. (or scabs, as unions call them)

It's extremely unlikely that all businesses in the same industry will agree. It just doesn't happen that often. In the same way, it is infinitesimally unlikely that every single person agrees with all union demands. That's why unions used to go around beating up people who wouldn't join, and blackmailed employers into not using non-union labour so that they could maintain their monopoly position.

Evidence or is this going to be another IPA level post from you spiv?

Back in days past, shop owners with powerful connections would also go around sabotaging businesses who undercut them etc. Both actions by the unions and the criminal shopkeepers are already illegal, no need for more laws in that area.

In modern times price fixing is quite rare - it's only possible when there are barriers to entry to competition. For example, Qantas and Ansett used to fix prices on routes where they had monopolies (mostly domestic routes and selected international routes). But they were only able to do so because of government regulations that prevented other airlines from competing with them. Those regulations were relaxed and other players entered the market. As a result air travel in Australia is now about 1/5th the price it was 20-30 years ago.

Can any of you guys come up with a single example of price fixing that is still going on, that doesn't involve government intervention?

If we knew one still going on, well, it would have been exposed by now so.... that question's genuineness is a logical impossibility.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Dosen't say anything about wages there, but along with fixing other things, why wouldn't employers try to fix wages as low as they could? Unless some sort of dastardly regulation prevented it...

Stop overanalyzing stuff. If it sounds good, of course it will work.

I figure everyone should get to have some fun making stuff up, and not just the economists and their advocates. So my logics is as follows. If there is a government top up, this could provide an incentive not to work. The government would therefore say introduce a requirement for the person to work to get the government top up. But the employer would also know of this requirement, and knows if the employee stops working they lose the top up. So the employer has something to hold over the employee and can pay them a low wage. If the employer pays the employee a low wage, it has little effect on the employee because they still get the goverment top up. So there is not enough incentive for the employee to leave if the employer pays low. The government is then paying most of the employee's wages. The goverment sets the top up lower to try to promote competition, or introduces a minimum wage to prevent employers doing this and we're back to where we started.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I figure everyone should get to have some fun making stuff up, and not just the economists and their advocates. So my logics is as follows...

But you're not making stuff up either... We're speculating on possible outcomes. What you've outlined could plausibly happen given conditions fall a certain way. Speculation and a workshopping of ideas and projected outcomes is what I HOPE our elected leaders are doing to build a more equitable future for us all.

But do you think I should hold my breath while waiting?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

But you're not making stuff up either... We're speculating on possible outcomes. What you've outlined could plausibly happen given conditions fall a certain way. Speculation and a workshopping of ideas and projected outcomes is what I HOPE our elected leaders are doing to build a more equitable future for us all.

But do you think I should hold my breath while waiting?

No.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Idiocracy of the left more like it;

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Idiocracy of the left more like it;

Unfortunate stuff-up. I bet she wished she had those thirty seconds back...

 

[Moo]

I don't think Pav is saying do it, I think he is saying here is a concept worth looking at.

One thing in the markets favour is at least the market is trying.

 

[Lebbo73]

Idiocracy of the left more like it;

Where is the bahahahaha button?

 

[telsor]

Idiocracy of the left more like it;

So it's what I suspected, the Greens really want to kill everyone.

 

[Floor Pie]

Could probably stack all of the stupid media comments by "the left" up against just Abbott's, and have an evenly distributed pile of "left" and "right".

 

[telsor]

Could probably stack all of the stupid media comments by "the left" up against just Abbott's, and have an evenly distributed pile of "left" and "right".

Agree, there is more than enough stupidity on both sides.

 

[madmug]

Not really, no. What egregious examples of price fixing in Australian history is it meant to prevent?

Apart from the oft quoted Visy Board disgrace, try looking up the ACCC web site for a few other examples. The law itself cant prevent anything. Its just that certain behaviors can be acted against, & that acts as a deterrent to other like minded businesses.
Their are probably a lot of Union & business practices that need 'monitoring'.

 

[B4Bear]

Could the OP actually describe what a 'Leftist' is? I consider my self to be left leaning, no doubt about it, and proud of it.
Does that mean I support everything every other left leaning person says? No way.
For example:
1. I believe in a strong and well equipped ADF, including the 12.5 Billion being used for the new JSF.
2. I believe in the same rule of law being applied to everyone, including refugees and those accused of terrorism, both here and abroad.
3. I believe in the right of the sate of Israel to exist.
4. I believe the Palestinian people have the right to their own homeland.
5. I believe that Islamic Fundamentalism should be fought, root and branch, regardless of where it is found.
6. I believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan.
7. I believe we should not have gone into Iraq.
8. I believe Australia should abide by our international treaties, including those regarding refugees.
9. I believe the anti-association laws in Queensland are a blight on that state.
10. I believe in a strong safety net for the less fortunate in our country.
11. I believe in medicare and oppose the co-payment because user pays medical treatment is a model that entrenches disadvantage.
12. I believe there is a place for well-organised unions in this country, and that illegal tactics should suffer the full force of the law.
13. I believe that corruption, in all its forms, should never be condoned, regardless of who it is.
14. I believe that mining companies get a free ride with regard to the 'total' amount of tax/royalties they pay.
15. I believe in free education for all children and heavily subsidised further education.
16. I believe that companies should be forced to train apprentices in the areas where those skills are used.

Now it seems to me that the short (so to speak) list above crosses the divide of left and right issues.
Thus anyone who decides (like the OP) that all things left (or right) for that matter is bad is just a fool, who has as much depth as a sheet of A4 paper.

 

[Pessimistic]

As political parties become more alike, the only difference is the wishes of the doners to their coffers

One party resists changes to donor arrangements with its last breath, but also decries the links the other party has to unions

It a very lazy party on that front

 

[madmug]

As political parties become more alike, the only difference is the wishes of the doners to their coffers

One party resists changes to donor arrangements with its last breath, but also decries the links the other party has to unions

It a very lazy party on that front

Party operations probably arent a lot different from each other. The parties themselves currently seem quite far apart. I guess this is the first Tea Party nutcase Gument we've had, so we're bound to notice the difference.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think another problem, apart from the donations, is both sides are represented by politicians who don't exactly have a deep understanding of the stuff they pitch to us.

We've seen so many fails on both sides of politics not because something was a bad idea but rather the politicians who make the decisions and tell us about it have no clues or distort it.

The word "carbon" was one of the biggest screw ups or intentional distortions, because it has meant that the words coal, oil, natural gas, fossil fuels, deforestation, etc are not said. As a result carbon, CO2 etc takes the hit and gets the bad name, while the real causes of climate change can still be labelled as good for jobs and humanity.

 

[Jiska]

Thus anyone who decides (like the OP) that all things left (or right) for that matter is bad is just a fool, who has as much depth as a sheet of A4 paper.

Could not agree more.

Could the OP actually describe what a 'Leftist' is? I consider my self to be left leaning, no doubt about it, and proud of it.
Does that mean I support everything every other left leaning person says? No way.
For example:

6. I believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan.
7. I believe we should not have gone into Iraq.

There are so many points there that I could launch a discussion on, but for now let's focus on these two.

How can you believe in one but not the other B4Bear?

 

[B4Bear]

Could not agree more.


There are so many points there that I could launch a discussion on, but for now let's focus on these two.

How can you believe in one but not the other B4Bear?

Afghanistan was in direct response to a state sanctioned attack on our closest ally, and the PM invoked the ANZUS treaty. That country condoned and supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Despite the Rhetoric of many, the USA are our friends, and it was a heinous crime that was perpetrated on them. The actual reason for our being there got lost when Iraq started.

Iraq was a complete cluster **** that removed the Resources from Afghanistan that led to the quagmire It became. Saddam was a bastard and deserved a bullet, no doubt, but they went after him for political and business reasons. Look at who made money out of that fiasco, Halliburton, Blackwater, G4S and a raft of other big money operators. The whole WMD was bogus, and the end result is we have the middle east in flames and ISIS terrorising half the world.

That is how I see it.

Just as a disclaimer, I am in the ADF and did a tour of Afghanistan. So maybe I am rationalising, but I don't think so.