Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats. (https://www.miataturbo.net/)
-   Current Events, News, Politics (https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/)
-   -   OMFG: Extreme voting fraud (https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/omfg-extreme-voting-fraud-65698/)

hustler 05-08-2012 01:18 AM

OMFG: Extreme voting fraud
 

These people belong in jail. I'm pretty furious over this. I think it's time to type up a manifesto.

jacob300zx 05-08-2012 01:44 AM

Holy crap that is awful

hustler 05-08-2012 01:57 AM

I like how Representative Debbie justifies the fraudulent voting because she has to get paid six figures to work long hours without pee pee breaks.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 02:30 AM

Who here continues to believe in conferring power to a small bunch of individuals in order to solve society's problems?

Braineack 05-08-2012 08:40 AM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 874977)
Who here continues to believe in conferring power to a small bunch of individuals in order to solve society's problems?


but they are smarter than you. video is case and point.

Ryan_G 05-08-2012 08:54 AM

WTF? How does this ---- happen and not be stopped. My mind = blown

Preluding 05-08-2012 09:26 AM

This is an old video... they won't get in trouble...they never do...

Would you pull yourself over for speeding??

Scrappy Jack 05-08-2012 09:32 AM

Unreal. This is where I just want to give up.

gospeed81 05-08-2012 09:42 AM

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...jpg?1296494117


Old vid. Repost. Been going on forever. We're fucked.

turotufas 05-08-2012 10:50 AM

Sorry bro :/ Didn't see you walking over to your desk to vote.

Braineack 05-08-2012 11:11 AM

I'd love to run onto the floor and push everyone's ----.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 11:46 AM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 874977)
Who here continues to believe in conferring power to a small bunch of individuals in order to solve society's problems?

As compared to handing true democratic power over to the great uneducated masses?

I do.

Ryan_G 05-08-2012 11:51 AM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875080)
As compared to handing true democratic power over to the great uneducated masses?

I do.

+1

The United States was never intended to be a true democracy. It was designed as a Republic where the masses elect leaders and those relatively few leaders make the decisions. People seem to forget this. The general populous is very uneducated and should not have any power over decisions on a national scale.

Braineack 05-08-2012 12:03 PM


Originally Posted by ryan_g (Post 875083)
it was designed as a republic where the masses elect leaders and those relatively few leaders make relatively few decisions. People seem to forget this.

ftfy.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 12:25 PM

Indeed- direct democracy was something that the founders of the US specifically feared and reviled, as it opens the door to the tyranny of the masses.
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

-James Madison

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 12:37 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875080)
As compared to handing true democratic power over to the great uneducated masses?

I do.

No, as opposed to gov't only protecting individual and property rights and little else. Society will solve most problems better than gov't can. This is NOT the same as "democracy".

The gov't today already acts like a pure democracy by propagandazing people into believing we are a democracy (see "spreading democracy") and into believing that they are exerting the "will of the people". This is why they are so busy and how they constantly get away with ---- every single day.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 12:42 PM


Originally Posted by Ryan_G (Post 875083)
+1

The United States was never intended to be a true democracy. It was designed as a Republic where the masses elect leaders and those relatively few leaders make the decisions. People seem to forget this. The general populous is very uneducated and should not have any power over decisions on a national scale.

Agreed. What I am advocating is small gov't, not "democracy".
This would include de-centralization of power and a return to a more "common law" type of gov't.

What most people seem to believe in, is a gov't that always "has to do something". The megalomaniacs in power LOVE this.
Kids getting drunk by squirting hand sanitizer into their soda? Federal War on hand sanitizer! Toyotas accelerating unintentionally? Mandate ECU code that precludes left-foot braking! Steroid use in baseball? Federal War on Steroids!

Here's interesting reading on the pitfalls of democracy:
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
-

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 12:51 PM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875119)
Agreed. What I am advocating is small gov't, not "democracy".
This would include de-centralization of power and a return to a more "common law" type of gov't.

Hmm. That's not what it sounded like. To me, the opposite of (or alternative to) "conferring power to a small bunch of individuals in order to solve society's problems" would be "conferring power to a large group of individuals in order to solve society's problems."

And that would be a Bad Thing™.



Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875113)
Society will solve most problems better than gov't can.

I very seriously doubt that.

As individuals, most people are reasonably sane and rational. But as a group, people tend to be stupid, panicky, irrational, and prone to herd mentality, particularly in the presence of sensationalist elements.



This is NOT the same as "democracy".
I'm willing to hear your explanation as to how "allowing society to solve its own problems" differs meaningfully from direct democracy.




What most people seem to believe in, is a gov't that always "has to do something".
And that's the problem in handing power directly to the masses. Instead of merely expecting someone else to solve their problems, they will attempt to do so themselves, without regard for the rate at which they are depleting fiscal resources in so doing.

From what I can tell, the majority of Americans can't even manage their own personal finances responsibly. Why do you believe that a million Joe Sixpacks, collectively, can solve society's problems?

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 01:55 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875123)
I'm willing to hear your explanation as to how "allowing society to solve its own problems" differs meaningfully from direct democracy.

Why are you assuming that those individuals must agree on one solution that is then enforced on everyone (direct democracy), rather than assuming that in the absence of government intervention, individuals could simply make decisions for themselves, or for their familes, or for their businesses and let other individuals choose as they please?

Braineack 05-08-2012 02:08 PM

nah, we should ban bake sales.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 02:12 PM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875176)
Why are you assuming that those individuals must agree on one solution that is then enforced on everyone (direct democracy), rather than assuming that in the absence of government intervention, individuals could simply make decisions for themselves, or for their familes, or for their businesses and let other individuals choose as they please?

Well, two reasons.

The first is that, in a large society, there are many decisions which have a direct impact on the well-being of the community as a whole. Examples would be the distribution and allocation of natural resources, the emission of pollutants and toxins into the environment, the construction of roads and bridges, the creation and enforcement of things like building and electrical codes, the allocation of finite intangible resources such as RF bandwidth for broadcast signals vs. cell phone signals vs. Wifi and other uses, and so on and so forth.


The second, which is directly related, is that both people and businesses have historically demonstrated that they are either unable or unwilling to regulate the aforementioned behavior in the absence of central mandate. As one example, in the absence of environmental regulations, chemical companies have historically tended to dispose of their toxic wastes by dumping them into rivers and streams, dumping them into the ground and thus contaminating the drinking water of entire cities, etc.


Personally, given the choice between being deprived of the liberty to dump my toxic waste wherever I want to vs. having other people dump all of their toxic waste into my drinking water, I'll choose the deprivation of the liberty.

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 02:41 PM

2 Attachment(s)

Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875189)
The first is that, in a large society, there are many decisions which have a direct impact on the well-being of the community as a whole.

And a great deal more decisions that do not impact the well-being of the community as a whole, and yet government still sees fit to intervene in private lives.


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875189)
The second, which is directly related, is that both people and businesses have historically demonstrated that they are either unable or unwilling to regulate the aforementioned behavior in the absence of central mandate.

I agree that, absent scrutiny, men generally try to get away with whatever they think they can get away with. I deny that the most efficacious form of scrutiny is government regulation in the form of some bureaucratic central mandate.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1336502508

http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/OSHAGraph.bmp

$60 Billion later, post-TSA air travel is no safer

Braineack 05-08-2012 02:47 PM

speaking of clean air:


Dr. Dave Wilkinson, from Liverpool John Moores University, who led a study of the issue, that was published in the journal Current Biology, said:
“A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate. Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources - both natural and man-made - put together.”
Medium-sized sauropods like diplodocus, which was 150 feet tall and weighed up to 45 tons, made enough methane to amount to roughly 472 million tons per year, the scientists calculated.


mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 02:54 PM

Man I forgot how cool dinosaurs were.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dinosaurs1.png

Braineack 05-08-2012 03:14 PM

speaking of TSA:

Diabetic teen says TSA screeners broke $10,000 insulin pump...

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...X7LAbC1Xw.cspx


then speaking of actually thrawting terriorism:

CIA derails plot with al-Qaida underwear bomb

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/a...rwearbomb.html

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 03:17 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875189)
Well, two reasons.

The first is that, in a large society, there are many decisions which have a direct impact on the well-being of the community as a whole. Examples would be the distribution and allocation of natural resources, the emission of pollutants and toxins into the environment, the construction of roads and bridges, the creation and enforcement of things like building and electrical codes, the allocation of finite intangible resources such as RF bandwidth for broadcast signals vs. cell phone signals vs. Wifi and other uses, and so on and so forth.

Even if one agreed with every item in the above list, 95% of what the Fed Gov does is waaaay outside those examples.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 03:30 PM

I like this quote from Bruno Leoni:


"No solemn titles, no pompous ceremonies, no enthusiasm on the part of applauding masses can conceal the crude fact that both the legislators and the directors of a centralized economy are only particular individuals like you and me, ignorant of 99 percent of what is going on around them as far as the real transactions, agreements, attitudes, feelings, and convictions of people are concerned. One of the paradoxes of our era is the continual retreat of traditional religious faith before the advance of science and technology, under the implied exigency of a cool and matter-of-fact attitude and dispassionate reasoning, accompanied by a no less continual retreat from the same attitude and reasoning in regard to legal and political questions. The mythology of our age is not religious, but political, and its chief myths seem to be 'representation' of the people, on the one hand, and the charismatic pretension of political leaders to be in possession of the truth and to act accordingly, on the other."
Friedrich Hayek has a term, "spontaneous order":

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


Spontaneous order, also known as "self-organization", is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process found in physical, biological, and social networks, as well as economics, though the term "self-organization" is more often used for physical and biological processes, while "spontaneous order" is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1] Naturalists often point to the inherent "watch-like" precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.
The idea that central planners and top-down control can improve on society was called "Fatal Conceit" by Hayek:

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


To Hayek the birth of civilization is due to the start of societal traditions placing importance on private property leading to expansion, trade, and eventually the modern capitalist system, also known as the extended order[1]. Socialists are wrong because they disregard the fact that modern civilization naturally evolved and was not planned. Additionally, since modern civilization and all of its customs and traditions naturally led to the current order and are needed for its continuance, any fundamental change to the system that tries to control it is doomed to fail since it would be impossible or unsustainable in modern civilization.

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 03:34 PM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875225)
The idea that central planners and top-down control can improve on society was called "Fatal Conceit" by Hayek

BUT HOW WILL THE GROCERS KNOW HOW MUCH MILK AND HOW MUCH LETTUCE TO STOCK UNLESS SOMEONE TELLS THEM????

I rest my case.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 03:35 PM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875201)
And a great deal more decisions that do not impact the well-being of the community as a whole, and yet government still sees fit to intervene in private lives.

To be honest, I'm having a difficult time thinking of a specific example of this (a government regulation that intervenes in my private life in a way that has no benefit to the community as a whole), though I'm sure that there are examples.

Sometimes, of course, laws and regulations restrict what I can or can't do in a way that only protects a small group of people, or even a single individual, rather than "the community as a whole". One very extreme example of this would be the regulation of the African slave trade in the US. Legally recognized slavery definitely benefited more Americans than it harmed, as prior to the invention of the steam engine and industrial mechanization, it enabled us to get a "leg up" on the world economy and become a major global player in the textile industry, in addition to creating an agricultural boom which raised the standard of living of most Americans.

Unfortunately, it did create a significant hardship for a small minority, namely the slaves themselves.



Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875201)
(charts)

I assume the intent here was to illustrate that downward trends already existed prior to the implementation of the specific law in question?

If so, these charts commit the fallacy of omission, by concealing the fact that the 1970 Clean Air Act was not the first piece of legislation enacted to decrease air pollution, nor was the formation of OSHA the first regulation put in place to ensure worker safety.

They've simply chosen two "big name" laws, plotted them on a chart, and completely ignored that fact that, individually, each was only one chapter in a long history of regulation.


Could the EPA be more efficient? Of course. No bureaucratic agency will ever be "optimal" by any reasonable definition of the word. But is it better from the mob rule and functional anarchy that would result from complete and total individual liberty?

You betcha.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 03:38 PM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875217)
Even if one agreed with every item in the above list, 95% of what the Fed Gov does is waaaay outside those examples.

As I said, I tried to think of an example of government regulation which curtailed my own liberty without having the intent of protecting the liberty of another, or the greater good of society.

And I failed.

I'm perfectly willing to hear specific examples from you or anyone else.

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 03:40 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875232)
To be honest, I'm having a difficult time thinking of a specific example of this (a government regulation that intervenes in my private life in a way that has no benefit to the community as a whole), though I'm sure that there are examples.

Seatbelt laws.


If so, these charts commit the fallacy of omission, by concealing the fact that the 1970 Clean Air Act was not the first piece of legislation enacted to decrease air pollution, nor was the formation of OSHA the first regulation put in place to ensure worker safety.

They've simply chosen two "big name" laws, plotted them on a chart, and completely ignored that fact that, individually, each was only one chapter in a long history of regulation.

Could the EPA be more efficient? Of course. No bureaucratic agency will ever be "optimal" by any reasonable definition of the word. But is it better from the mob rule and functional anarchy that would result from complete and total individual liberty?

You betcha.
So your response is bare assertion?

Braineack 05-08-2012 03:42 PM

Enjoy Joe:








mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 03:55 PM

LMAO...who gave me a -1 for post #22?

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 04:15 PM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875236)
Seatbelt laws.

Ok, that's a good one. And I'd have never thought of it, to be honest.

If I were to play devil's advocate, I might postulate that seatbelt use reduces injuries from automobile accidents, thus decreasing the economic burden on society and the public healthcare system from treating same.

But in reality, I agree with you. This is a good example of the government overstepping its bounds. I don't feel that it harms me in any way to be forced to wear a seatbelt (I wear one anyway), but I do recognize the validity of your premise.




Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875236)
So your response is bare assertion?

No, those charts were simply misleading. My response is to point out the fallacy in the argument which I assume they were trying to make.

I could, for instance, point out the fact that over the past several centuries there has been a direct correlation between the decrease in the number of European men (as a percentage of the total male population of Europe) who wear hats every day and the increase in average global temperature.

If someone else then came along and read that data, and from it inferred that wearings hats prevents global warming, then I'd be guilty of using misleading data to deceive them, presupposing that this was my intention in generating the original observation.




Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 875238)
Enjoy Joe:(videos)

I have a new policy- I call it Jason's Law. I don't waste my time watching videos or reading off-site materials that people post in defense of their positions in the Politics section.

If you can't summarize it for me in your own words, I'm not going to dignify it with my time.



Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875253)
LMAO...who gave me a -1 for post #22?

'Twas not I. But I will go ahead and bump you back up to 0 on it.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 04:27 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875232)
To be honest, I'm having a difficult time thinking of a specific example of this (a government regulation that intervenes in my private life in a way that has no benefit to the community as a whole), though I'm sure that there are examples.

Every single business regulation that reduces competition may cost you $5 a year here and $5 a year there in reduced economic efficiency.

In every case when some new law is being reviewed it's not worth your time to fight against it. But for the firms in question it's worth millions. So they organize and lobby for it. You and I don't have the same organization.

Multiply the above by thousands and thousands of regulations and it may be worth 10's of thousands of $ per year.

From Bastiat's the Law:


Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them.

Law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

The plans differ; the planners are all alike...

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

If you wish to prosper, let your customer prosper. When people have learned this lesson, everyone will seek his individual welfare in the general welfare. Then jealousies between man and man, city and city, province and province, nation and nation, will no longer trouble the world.

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

It is easier to show the disorder that must accompany reform than the order that should follow it.

The sort of dependence that results from exchange, i.e., from commercial transactions, is a reciprocal dependence. We cannot be dependent upon a foreigner without his being dependent on us. Now, this is what constitutes the very essence of society. To sever natural interrelations is not to make oneself independent, but to isolate oneself completely.

...the statement, “The purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign,” is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 04:27 PM

Now here's a real world example. The high cost of FDA testing:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 04:32 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875264)
Ok, that's a good one. And I'd have never thought of it, to be honest.

If I were to play devil's advocate, I might postulate that seatbelt use reduces injuries from automobile accidents, thus decreasing the economic burden on society and the public healthcare system from treating same.

I'm sure proponents of laws like these are quick to point out secondary benefits like (supposed) cost-saving; however, the legislation is always sold to the public as "Government needs to make your life safer, whether you want it to or not." (As an aside, I realize that it's wrong to refer to that as a sales pitch; for one thing, there's no need for a sales pitch when you have the power of coercion. For another thing, if there is a sales pitch involved, it's undoubtedly being made by one government official to another, not between the government and the public.)


But in reality, I agree with you. This is a good example of the government overstepping its bounds. I don't feel that it harms me in any way to be forced to wear a seatbelt (I wear one anyway), but I do recognize the validity of your premise.
Thank you. I picked the most clear-cut example that came to mind (I almost went with bike helmet laws, but there's an issue of child safety there that I didn't want to touch). I'm sure we'd have more disagreement over the more ambiguous cases.


No, those charts were simply misleading. My response is to point out the fallacy in the argument which I assume they were trying to make.

I could, for instance, point out the fact that over the past several centuries there has been a direct correlation between the decrease in the number of European men (as a percentage of the total male population of Europe) who wear hats every day and the increase in average global temperature.

If someone else then came along and read that data, and from it inferred that wearings hats prevents global warming, then I'd be guilty of using misleading data to deceive them, presupposing that this was my intention in generating the original observation.
I'm not sure this critique applies. Yes, a chart covering the years surrounding the implementation of a single piece of legislation does not a comprehensive argument make. On the other hand, the passage of that legislation rested on the idea that a future without those regulations in place was doomed to some horrible outcome. If the data suggests that the rate of improvement appears to be unchanged, then we have to look more critically at the claims made about the necessity of these laws.


'Twas not I. But I will go ahead and bump you back up to 0 on it.
No worries...I don't mind the -1's when I'm a dumbass or a jerk...but it does make me laugh when someone can find no other appropriate response to a political, philosophical, or economic argument than to show me who's boss by dinging my prop total.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 04:36 PM

Small example:

Why should cities take it upon themselves to fix the price and number of taxis?

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 04:37 PM

In other news regarding government intervention:

Obesity fight must shift from personal blame - U.S. panel

My favorite line:


The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment.

Braineack 05-08-2012 04:40 PM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875275)
Small example:

Why should cities take it upon themselves to fix the price and number of taxis?


to protect us from evil limo drivers with better service and cleaner rides.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 04:42 PM

Another question is:

Why do people accept and never question the idea that the city gov't should set the price and number of taxis?

Did it never occur to them that it is price-fixing, something that is considered evil when cartels do it?

Braineack 05-08-2012 04:45 PM

i feel bad for taxi drivers...especially for the ones that cant afford $1,000,000,000 tokens to be able to service large cities like New York.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 04:51 PM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875275)
Small example:

Why should cities take it upon themselves to fix the price and number of taxis?

They don't.

A very recent and personal example:

Every year, the broadcast industry has a massive trade show in Vegas, put on by the NAB, or National Association of Broadcasters. (No, despite the name, we're not a union and we have very little lobbying capacity.) This show is one of the largest in Vegas in terms of number of attendees, and there is *always* a taxi shortage.

This past year, cab companies in Vegas tried to increase the number of Taxis by a small amount to provide some relief. The drivers themselves (who are unionized) lobbied the city to nix the plan, and they did.

References:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/...for-nab/212864
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/ap...nced-denial-m/
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/fe...-cabs-during-/

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 04:59 PM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 875281)
Did it never occur to them that it is price-fixing, something that is considered evil when cartels do it?

Ah, Ninja Edit.

This is actually a good example of what happens when regulatory authority is vested at the state or municipal level, rather than at the Federal level.

This divestment of power, if I recall correctly, is one of the things that you most strongly advocate. And yet the taxi example is an excellent illustration of how it is much easier for corruption and collusion of this nature to occur unnoticed at the smaller scale which one encounters at the municipal level as opposed to the much larger and more visible Federal level.

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 05:01 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875289)
They don't.

A very recent and personal example:

Every year, the broadcast industry has a massive trade show in Vegas, put on by the NAB, or National Association of Broadcasters. (No, despite the name, we're not a union and we have very little lobbying capacity.) This show is one of the largest in Vegas in terms of number of attendees, and there is *always* a taxi shortage.

This past year, cab companies in Vegas tried to increase the number of Taxis by a small amount to provide some relief. The drivers themselves (who are unionized) lobbied the city to nix the plan, and they did.

References:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/...for-nab/212864
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/ap...nced-denial-m/
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/fe...-cabs-during-/

Emphasis mine.

I realize your story was intended to point out that it was the drivers who wanted to erect a barrier to enter the market. Do you realize that your story confirms that the city has indeed taken for itself the power to control the number of taxis?

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 05:08 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875291)
This is actually a good example of what happens when regulatory authority is vested at the state or municipal level, rather than at the Federal level.

This divestment of power, if I recall correctly, is one of the things that you most strongly advocate. And yet the taxi example is an excellent illustration of how it is much easier for corruption and collusion of this nature to occur unnoticed at the smaller scale which one encounters at the municipal level as opposed to the much larger and more visible Federal level.

It is attempted and accomplished at all levels of government. The silver lining to your Las Vegas example is that it doesn't affect me, because I don't live in Las Vegas, nor do I attend trade shows in Las Vegas.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 05:12 PM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875292)
Emphasis mine.

I realize your story was intended to point out that it was the drivers who wanted to erect a barrier to enter the market. Do you realize that your story confirms that the city has indeed taken for itself the power to control the number of taxis?

Exactly. Existing players go to gov't and ask for laws that erect barriers to entry. This is Corporatism. If it were outside of gov't's proper role to do so then they couldn't ask for it.

Joe Perez 05-08-2012 06:30 PM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875292)
I realize your story was intended to point out that it was the drivers who wanted to erect a barrier to enter the market. Do you realize that your story confirms that the city has indeed taken for itself the power to control the number of taxis?

Well, yes. I consider it axiomatic. It's a natural byproduct of the unionization of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. It is the unions themselves which persuade the local governments to regulate such things as taxicab medallions- by doing so, they protect themselves from competition.

In cities which have not historically hosted strong labor unions, taxicabs are licensed and regulated in much the same way as restaurants or tattoo parlors- they must pay a licensing fee and undergo inspection, but are otherwise fairly free to operate as they please.


I'd love to hear a viable plan for how to eliminate labor unions on the US altogether.

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 06:40 PM

No need to plan anything, they're going extinct.

Ryan_G 05-08-2012 06:58 PM

Labor unions will slowly fade and disappear as global competition heats up companies need to cut costs or fail. The unions will have to slowly concede their power or bankrupt their companies. It also doesn't help that the overall attitude towards unions has been declining for years. However price fixing will occur without govt regulation too. It has happened in the past and will happen again without intervention. The big fish can always choke out the little fish.

bbundy 05-08-2012 07:04 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 875342)


I'd love to hear a viable plan for how to eliminate labor unions on the US altogether.

Answer: Become Fascist. Corporatists and the wealthy elite controllers of capital control government and suppress the voice of labor.

That is the plan that seems to be working quite nicely. Union membership as a percentage of the work force is the lowest it’s been in 70 years. Approaching levels it was at during the beginning of the great depression.

Bob

JasonC SBB 05-08-2012 07:50 PM

Here's a good quote from a review of an interesting looking book:
Engineering the Financial Crisis: Systemic Risk and the Failure of Regulation


What sets this book apart from the others is the acknowledgement that information failures (i.e. ignorance and uncertainty) lay at the heart of the crisis. Neither the bankers nor the regulators adequately understood the nature or severity of the risks of low quality mortgage-backed securities flowing through the financial system. In hindsight, hardly anyone understood the risks or was willing to short the assertion that real estate values always rise.

But, the authors make an important Hayekian distinction: information failures work very differently among regulators and market participants. While there may be heterogeneous opinions among regulators as to the correct regulations, only one theory gets codified into law. In contrast, discordant theories between market participants lead to competition and a darwinian weeding out of erroneous strategies via profits and losses. Regulations, as codified by the SEC, the Federal Reserve and various other regulatory agencies worked in perverse ways to disable important information from reaching the market and led to unintended catastrophic consequences. In the meantime, bankers did what they always do - they maximized their incomes.

mgeoffriau 05-08-2012 08:27 PM


Originally Posted by bbundy (Post 875358)
Answer: Become Fascist. Corporatists and the wealthy elite controllers of capital control government and suppress the voice of labor.

Yes, what ever will we steelmill and coal mine workers do?

Joe Perez 05-09-2012 02:48 AM


Originally Posted by bbundy (Post 875358)
Answer: Become Fascist.

Hmm.

By the same token, detonating a nuclear weapon in my garage would nicely solve the spider problem I've been having lately.

It might, however, have certain negative consequences which outweigh the benefits of a spiderless workplace.



Originally Posted by bbundy (Post 875358)
That is the plan that seems to be working quite nicely. Union membership as a percentage of the work force is the lowest it’s been in 70 years. Approaching levels it was at during the beginning of the great depression.

I do hope that you're right. And I don't have any hard data on this myself. What I do know is that the pimply teenager who used to bag my groceries at Vons (before I switched to Trader Joe's) is a union member, as are the nice folks who teach kindergarden at the school just down the road, the lady who delivers my mail, and so on.

Anybody whose job could reasonably be performed by a robot or a computer program does not deserve to be in a union.

Screenwriters, for crying out loud. People who write television screenplays for a living. They're unionized. So are network news writers, drywall installers, baseball umpires, playwrights, baggage handlers, and the one asѕhole whose job it is to ensure that my crate containing the distribution panel doesn't get offloaded from the truck and delivered to the booth at the convention hall until after the unionized electricians have gone home for the day, and who won't return until five minutes before the unionized riggers go on lunch break the following morning.

(deep breath...)




Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875386)
Yes, what ever will we steelmill and coal mine workers do?

Well, that's just it.

A hundred and fifty years ago, labor unions made sense in the US. That was an era in which the only responsibility of the railroad operator was to clear the bodies of dead brakemen off the track, and where steelworkers literally toiled 16 hours a day over an open pit furnace with nothing but a cloth handkerchief for protection.

But then we discovered tort law. And OSHA. And the Civil Rights Act.

Today, no worker in the US is asked to perform under anything resembling the sort of inhuman conditions which spawned the labor union back when their great-great-great grandfathers were dropping dead from silicosis and black lung. But a mighty beast, once created, will defend its existence, even if the greatest injustice that it must combat is whether it is fair for workers to only be allowed a total of 45 minutes per day of on-the-clock time to stand outside, smoke, and make rude gestures at passers-by.













But I digress.

Braineack 05-09-2012 09:02 AM

1 Attachment(s)

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 875386)
Yes, what ever will we steelmill and coal mine workers do?

those 99%ers are so annoying.


joe, some advice:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1336571598

bbundy 05-09-2012 12:11 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Lowest percentage of the labor force going back to the 1930's is our current union level. While I am not a union guy I have to still give them a lot of credit for raising the standard of living for the majority of Americans, even making helping to make it so piss ant jobs can be used as a stepping stone for achieving greater things in pursuit of the American dream.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...6&d=1336579384

Braineack 05-09-2012 12:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Progress!


now we just gotta keep working at fixing crap like this:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1336580929

comparing salries of librarians.


Since union members still get paid astronomical amounts of wages, and now all paid by the state...it's no wonder we see places like OH end up like this:

http://thathero.com/wp-content/uploa...burden-7th.jpg

bbundy 05-10-2012 06:17 PM

2 Attachment(s)
At the same time union membership has been declining look what has been happening to workers share of the national Income. And Republicans think the solution is eliminate taxes only on the income from sources other than work taking the Ideas implemented with taxes started in the 80’s to the extreme that has proven to be a failed Idea.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...9&d=1336688206

JasonC SBB 05-10-2012 09:36 PM

The reason for that is the skyrocketing exec pay.
And the reason for that, is:


bbundy 05-11-2012 12:45 AM


Originally Posted by JasonC SBB (Post 876305)
The reason for that is the skyrocketing exec pay.
And the reason for that, is:


Jason, most every one of the republicans in congress are willing to make sure congress will do nothing to correct this. And certainly every one that signed up with Grover Norquist. Somehow eliminating loopholes they call a tax increase when it is loopholes for the wealthy. They have all the people convinced on the job creator fallacy. I think even if Ron Paul were elected president this will not change Ron even admitted the first thing was to get rid of capital gains tax but he wouldn’t get rid of income tax because it was too ingrained in our system. Again the problem gets worse.

The way the rules are written stock option compensation for executives at profitable major corporations is basically paid for by tax payers and not from the profits of the company they are supposedly running. Looking at just the corporation I work for it hasn’t had a positive federal income tax bill in the last 6 years. Some of it was depreciation of assets some of it was research tax credits but 40 or 50 million was from writing off cashed out stock options given at a discount rate to executives costing the company essentially nothing just diluting the stock for shareholders. The company gets to write off the value they are eventually sold at and the executives who waited a year to cash them out get to claim them at the long term capital gains rate on their personal income tax.
Bob


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands