Anti-WalMart Campaign?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is only an example. Surely the people that create bombs that blow things up are providing less value to society then anything in the free market, agree or disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, but not always. Suppose there is a group conspiring to use bombs to blow up several buildings. The owners of these buildings decide to bomb the original bombers first. A bomb is much cheaper than rebuilding their own buiildings. So the bomb had more utility than other resources. It also serves as a deterent for the future.

Blowing bombs up in the desert has some value as well, as it is training. The exact benefits are hard to measure, but there is at least some value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd agree but for some reason I don't think the $1Billion/week we're spending in Iraq is one of those examples.

edit: That's not counting the thousands who have died from it

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those soldiers could be building infrastructure in you cities, those buildings and machines that are sitting in a desert halfway across the world could be schools and hospitals

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope those making this point realise that this is a socialist arguement. The above is only relevant if there is shortage of equipment/labour to biuld hospitals. As we have seen people are willing to work at Wal Mart so I think we can assume that the market for labour is ok, indeed perhaps if there were more soldiers in Iraq then Wal Mart would have to pay its staff more (this is a joke btw).


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you could pick any number of examples. Some other less obvious benefits would be saving the money for later use, shorter work weeks, better educated population. Not all economic benefits have to be physical.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Obvioulsy bringing the soldiers back to be employed by all the funds released into the economy by massive cuts in defence spending isnt socialist.

However the post I was answering used the specific examples of infrastucure and hospitals. I dont see how the returning labour would be employed directly in those activiites with out a command economy.


[/ QUOTE ]

So we shouldnt end the war in Iraq because it will cause unemployment?

Unemployment isnt the end of the world, those people will find jobs. If the change back to regular work is going to be tough on families and communities its the governments fault providing unsustainable jobs. We cant stay at war for ever.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
If union workers are so productive why do business resist unionization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Businesses resist unionization because it's a lot easier to favorably negotiate with disorganized individuals than it is to negotiate with a group of them. Duh.

The weird thing is that most of the people who stand to benefit most from unions hate unions. They don't mind taking whatever the Man offers. I am not sure what causes this. I suspect that it's the successful result of a decades-long campaign by corporations and the political right to convince the working class to hate itself. Maybe the emergence of the welfare state aggravated it. Who knows?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is only an example. Surely the people that create bombs that blow things up are providing less value to society then anything in the free market, agree or disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, but not always. Suppose there is a group conspiring to use bombs to blow up several buildings. The owners of these buildings decide to bomb the original bombers first. A bomb is much cheaper than rebuilding their own buiildings. So the bomb had more utility than other resources. It also serves as a deterent for the future.

Blowing bombs up in the desert has some value as well, as it is training. The exact benefits are hard to measure, but there is at least some value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd agree but for some reason I don't think the $1Billion/week we're spending in Iraq is one of those examples.

edit: That's not counting the thousands who have died from it

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in this particular case (and many other cases). But be careful with blanket statements, as other ACists like to do.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that it's the successful result of a decades-long campaign by corporations and the political right to convince the working class to hate itself. Maybe the emergence of the welfare state aggravated it. Who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's the extreme corruption that has plagued unions in the past. Maybe it's the prospect of extensive union rules, shop stewards, etc. Maybe it's a sense of individualism. Maybe workers understand that a non-unionized plant is better able to compete and want to help their company thrive. Maybe workers have good relationships with their company and don't want a bunch of outsiders coming in, skimming off their paychecks, and imposing themselves in between them and their good managers.

Or maybe it's the result of a decades-long campaign of brainwashing. Makes sense to me.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is only an example. Surely the people that create bombs that blow things up are providing less value to society then anything in the free market, agree or disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, but not always. Suppose there is a group conspiring to use bombs to blow up several buildings. The owners of these buildings decide to bomb the original bombers first. A bomb is much cheaper than rebuilding their own buiildings. So the bomb had more utility than other resources. It also serves as a deterent for the future.

Blowing bombs up in the desert has some value as well, as it is training. The exact benefits are hard to measure, but there is at least some value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd agree but for some reason I don't think the $1Billion/week we're spending in Iraq is one of those examples.

edit: That's not counting the thousands who have died from it

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in this particular case (and many other cases). But be careful with blanket statements, as other ACists like to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the thing is your example is not similar to what happens in a state. In the event of a war a coersive monopoly forces everyone within it's grasp to contribute to it's war efforts. This is much different then a building owner using it's own resourses to fund his/her defense of his buildings.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obvioulsy bringing the soldiers back to be employed by all the funds released into the economy by massive cuts in defence spending isnt socialist.

However the post I was answering used the specific examples of infrastucure and hospitals. I dont see how the returning labour would be employed directly in those activiites with out a command economy.


[/ QUOTE ]

So we shouldnt end the war in Iraq because it will cause unemployment?

Unemployment isnt the end of the world, those people will find jobs. If the change back to regular work is going to be tough on families and communities its the governments fault providing unsustainable jobs. We cant stay at war for ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so we are clear I in no way support the war in Iraq. I was just being a nit about those specific examples.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's the extreme corruption that has plagued unions in the past. Maybe it's the prospect of extensive union rules, shop stewards, etc. Maybe it's a sense of individualism. Maybe workers understand that a non-unionized plant is better able to compete and want to help their company thrive. Maybe workers have good relationships with their company and don't want a bunch of outsiders coming in, skimming off their paychecks, and imposing themselves in between them and their good managers.

[/ QUOTE ]

These aren't bad points, but one would think there would be a demand for some form of collective bargaining. But there isn't. The very idea of working together to negotiate is flat anathema to a lot of working-class people.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's the extreme corruption that has plagued unions in the past. Maybe it's the prospect of extensive union rules, shop stewards, etc. Maybe it's a sense of individualism. Maybe workers understand that a non-unionized plant is better able to compete and want to help their company thrive. Maybe workers have good relationships with their company and don't want a bunch of outsiders coming in, skimming off their paychecks, and imposing themselves in between them and their good managers.

[/ QUOTE ]

These aren't bad points, but one would think there would be a demand for some form of collective bargaining. But there isn't. The very idea of working together to negotiate is flat anathema to a lot of working-class people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If unions were organized along the lines of the Major League Baseball Players Association, where the players and owners have agreed to some basic ground rules, but the players are free to negotiate their own contracts within those ground rules - plus share data about what they achieved, then I could see unions working for a lot of professionals - from IT workers to even doctors and lawyers. But when most unions are more interested in protecting incompetents, union officials, and those with more seniority, I can see why most people refuse to join.