• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Of course there should be some flex in your expectations of your material goods but being held responsible for a collapse... that's not something that business plans generally can predict.

Here's a Forbes article on the chinese dumping that hurt solyndra

All this seems political as well. There was no need for the US government to enter the solar business.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I think you are mistaken as to the issue. The problem with Solyndra is that it is an example of how A) governments are lousy investment capitalists from an ROI perspective and B) that is not least because they tend to give money to their friends.

while i cannot speak for all governments, the federal financing program i spent my career within helped launch the likes of AOL, FedEx, Nike, Intel, Winnebago, and Ben & Jerry's
there were a lot of failures, too. and i often wonder how many applications we declined that could have been potential major successes if we only had a better insight into their prospects
in the 80's Erskine Bowles commissioned an audit of this federal business lender, SBA. in terms of tax revenues from the businesses and their additional employees, those who were working only because of the provided government financing, that agency was a net revenue generator
when i began my career, i was a large "L" Libertarian, opposed to government intervention in most things. when i ended my career i had become a democratic socialist, after observing first-hand how well run government can provide widespread positive impact for huge numbers of our citizens

so, no, i would want you to show us proof that those in government tend to fund their friends
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

while i cannot speak for all governments, the federal financing program i spent my career within helped launch the likes of AOL, FedEx, Nike, Intel, Winnebago, and Ben & Jerry's
there were a lot of failures, too. and i often wonder how many applications we declined that could have been potential major successes if we only had a better insight into their prospects

Hooray! Great Idea! Free Money that comes from Nowhere!

More seriously, having interacted with a few notable names doesn't really change the fact that yes, in fact, government is an awful investment capitalist, as it response to political, rather than economic incentives. If this wasn't correct - if government was indeed an excellent investment capitalist, if she could indeed direct innovation and allocate resources well, then Socialism would work instead of turning every time into an impoverished failure that its' supporters pretend didn't happen.

In the 80's Erskine Bowles commissioned an audit of this federal business lender, SBA. in terms of tax revenues from the businesses and their additional employees, those who were working only because of the provided government financing, that agency was a net revenue generator
when i began my career, i was a large "L" Libertarian, opposed to government intervention in most things. when i ended my career i had become a democratic socialist, after observing first-hand how well run government can provide widespread positive impact for huge numbers of our citizens

:lol: yeah? And how many times did your department have to shut down because you'd invested badly? What was your departments average annual profit during the time you were there?

so, no, i would want you to show us proof that those in government tend to fund their friends

:shrug: It's not exactly rocket surgery.

...Abstract
This paper investigates the relation between corporate political connections and government investment. We study various forms of political influence, ranging from passive connections between firms and politicians, such as those based on politicians’ voting districts, to active forms, such as lobbying, campaign contributions, and employment of connected directors. Using hand-collected data on firm applications for TARP funds, we find that politically connected firms are more likely to be funded, controlling for other characteristics. Yet investments in politically connected firms underperform those in unconnected firms. Overall, we show that connections between firms and regulators are associated with distortions in investment efficiency....

Why do you think companies invest in congresscritters and the like? It's not because they are just civic minded political junkies who love the cut and spar of debate - they expect (and get) a return on investment.
 
Last edited:
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

A zillion other companies? Then the names of these companies should be made public and explained how giving them public money has benefited the taxpayer. Is Barack Obama too modest to pint out his zillions of business successes?

The government isn't "in the business". It's a guaranteed DOE business loan. The government doesn't own or run anything of the business. They've been giving these business loan guarantees to the nuclear industry for decades which has a 50% loan fail rate according to a 2003 CBO study. There was no complaining then.

Here's just the current DOE business loan portfolio and their recipients. $32.4 billion right now.
 
Last edited:
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Most places do nor require nor benefit from unions these days. It's an archaic labor method that's outlived it's usefulness in most cases.

I understand this viewpoint but I think it fails to recognize that labor unions are as much a part of any capitalist society as large employers. If you agree that allowing markets to operate freely is the best, most efficient, most just way of organizing an economy, then you also have to accept the fact that folks who choose to become wage-earners have the right and ability to organize and negotiate as a group since they are "selling" their labor in a free marketplace.

That said, it is true that most of the abuses and reasons for organized labor's existence have largely become things of the past, but that does not mean that we don't need unions anymore or that we don't benefit from their existence. In fact, the threat of a union forming is one factor that keeps most companies (and as an HR professional I can tell you this first-hand) from attempting to exploit their employees. If unions' rights (or the ability to bargain collectively in general) were to be weakened too much, it would open the door for past patterns of abuse and exploitation to occur again.

We've come a long way since the intense labor battles that went on for about 80 years or so before the government finally stepped in and forced everyone to stop killing each other over labor disputes. I think the viewpoint I've quoted above could actually be dangerous because it leads people to believe that unions are detrimental, useless organizations that we should get rid of altogether.
 
Last edited:
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

The government isn't "in the business". It's a guaranteed DOE business loan. The government doesn't own or run anything of the business. They've been giving these business loan guarantees to the nuclear industry for decades which has a 50% loan fail rate according to a 2003 CBO study. There was no complaining then.
The government is giving out ' business loans' but know nothing about business? And you seem to feel that a failure rate of 50% is a good thing because it has been going on "for decades"?

I suppose it's not such a bad thing if you feel somebody else is paying for all of this.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

The government is giving out ' business loans' but know nothing about business? And you seem to feel that a failure rate of 50% is a good thing because it has been going on "for decades"?

I suppose it's not such a bad thing if you feel somebody else is paying for all of this.

No... my point is that you never bitched about a 50% failure rate of nuclear reactors getting loans... just when it's solar because you can make solar more politically advantageous to whine about.

Also, I noticed you cut out my link in your reply to me and failed to even mention a thank you for providing EXACTLY what you asked for. Evidence of others getting the loans. You are welcome.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

No... my point is that you never bitched about a 50% failure rate of nuclear reactors getting loans... just when it's solar because you can make solar more politically advantageous to whine about.
Did you want me to bitch about that? There may be dozens of things I bitch about that I don't necessarily share with you, and this particular discussion did not involve nuclear reactors. I cannot possibly list all the government waste which goes on, including nuclear.
Also, I noticed you cut out my link in your reply to me and failed to even mention a thank you for providing EXACTLY what you asked for. Evidence of others getting the loans. You are welcome.
I asked you to provide that list??
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Since we've boosted trade with China we've adopted free trade while they've opted for protectionism. They put tariffs on US goods like cars coming into their country and then dump goods on us of items that are not only crap but destroy an economic sector for a while.

This is what happened o Solyndra. They had a solid business plan where the production of solar panels were based on X amount of watts created per x amount of dollars. China flooded the market with solar panels that were predominantly garbage but it drove the price per watt down way below Solyndra's business plan which not only killed them but really set back the sector hard as their trash solar panels then were predominantly flawed but the economic damage had been done.

But back to your point, we shouldn't cheat like china does with dumping and that ****ing currency manipulation they've been illegally doing forever but tariff their goods at least until they stop cheating with these methods. We looked the other way and went free trade and along with cheating, China went protectionism and their economy exploded.

China did not "opt for protectionism" over the past 30-50 years. China was much more protectionistic for centuries until just a generation or two ago. Their economy exploded because they're a huge country with vast resources that had been holding itself back for centuries before finally starting to adopt some capitalistic strategies.

You cannot cite China as an example of an economy that exploded thanks to protectionism. The Chinese economy exploded thanks to abandoning protectionism.
 
Last edited:
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

China was much more protectionistic until a generation or two ago. Their economy exploded because they're a huge country with vast resources that had been holding itself back for centuries before finally starting to adopt some capitalistic strategies.

And, as is usually the case, the most energetic resource is people. Free the people and you'll free the most natural resource.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

China did not "opt for protectionism" over the past 30-50 years. China was much more protectionistic for centuries until just a generation or two ago. Their economy exploded because they're a huge country with vast resources that had been holding itself back for centuries before finally starting to adopt some capitalistic strategies.

You cannot cite China as an example of an economy that exploded thanks to protectionism. The Chinese economy exploded thanks to abandoning protectionism.

China didn't opt for free trade. They opted that they trade with the US whole we are bound by free trade policies and they don't. That is far more protectionist than us. That is why their economy exploded.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

China didn't opt for free trade. They opted that they trade with the US whole we are bound by free trade policies and they don't. That is far more protectionist than us. That is why their economy exploded.

Being more protectionistic than the United States wasn't what caused their economic explosion either. China's overall economy over the last fifty years was not an example of a shift toward protectionism from a place of previously free trade. It was the opposite. They opened their markets up after generations of greater control and that opening up was what generated their economic explosion. You're crediting the economic expansion to the opposite of what caused it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom