Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Much of the power of unions comes from the regulations which protect them from activities which would dissuade the formation of the union. I'm speaking about activities that would otherwise be legal and within the rights of the people trying to dissuade the unions, I'm not talking about physical violence.

You’re out to lunch if you think the primary purpose of laws/regulations around unions are meant to protect the unions instead of employers.

Can you give some specific examples of what activities you’re referring to?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A lot of word salad being thrown around here, but yet “greedflation” and the concept of excess profits contributing to inflation is still effectively undisputed.

I think the point is that this should be an expected outcome and regulated against rather than blaming corps to being corps.

[BoLevi]

[QUOTE=Fuzz;9292699]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Externalities as a concept is just another word for acknowledging someone else's self interest. People act against their own self interest all of the time - especially when it comes to their kids. But that's an act that depends on wealth creation. Wealth must be created before it can be allocated after all. And the mechanism for wealth creation is the efficient allocation of capital driven by... self interest.

With respect to climate change policy in particular: it has failed because the majority of the human population sees carbon emissions as having a net positive utility for them and their future generations. Only a select portion of the world population sees carbon emissions as having a net negative utility for them and their future generations.[/QUOTE]
https://ourworldindata.org/climate-change-support
You seem to say and believe a lot of things that have no grounding in reality.


Also didn't answer my question.

Fair enough. Caring about your offspring and subsequent generations is a luxury. It's the spending of your excess capital.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the point is that this should be an expected outcome and regulated against rather than blaming corps to being corps.

Regulating corporate profits is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing

[Fuzz]

[QUOTE=BoLevi;9292734]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Fair enough. Caring about your offspring and subsequent generations is a luxury. It's the spending of your excess capital.

And if you don't have offspring to care about? Why would people still do it, in the world the way you imagine it to be? You seem incapable of understanding that people do things often because it is the right thing do do for others, even if it provides little or no individual benefit.

[BoLevi]

[QUOTE=Fuzz;9292744]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And if you don't have offspring to care about? Why would people still do it, in the world the way you imagine it to be? You seem incapable of understanding that people do things often because it is the right thing do do for others, even if it provides little or no individual benefit.

I actually specifically acknowledged that above in one of my posts. I'm not talking about how people prefer to spend their excess capital, which is one thing. I'm talking about how capital is most efficiently allocated...and it is somewhat of a red herring to claim that "externalities" are often negative outcomes that should limit or modify our view of capital allocation as one other poster suggested. The use of "externalities" as a mechanism of justifying an anti-capitalist/free-market stance doesn't work, because they represent the self-interest of another party. So we're back at square one in terms of acknowledging self interest.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re out to lunch if you think the primary purpose of laws/regulations around unions are meant to protect the unions instead of employers.

Can you give some specific examples of what activities you’re referring to?

This is an easy list to read. Almost everything (or at least a large portion of things) on this list limits either freedom of speech or freedom of association of the employer or personnel of the employer.

https://albertacarpenters.com/home/w...loyer-cant-do/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is an easy list to read. Almost everything (or at least a large portion of things) on this list limits either freedom of speech or freedom of association of the employer or personnel of the employer.

https://albertacarpenters.com/home/w...loyer-cant-do/

Which parts specifically?

Things like protections against illegal surveillance aren’t limited to people involved in trying to join a Union.

Most of these things don’t protect the Union but rather the employees and their right to freely associate should they choose to. Some clarification on which of these laws specifically protect unions while allegedly impeding the otherwise protected rights of employers would be helpful.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Which parts specifically?

Things like protections against illegal surveillance aren’t limited to people involved in trying to join a Union.

Most of these things don’t protect the Union but rather the employees and their right to freely associate should they choose to. Some clarification on which of these laws specifically protect unions while allegedly impeding the otherwise protected rights of employers would be helpful.

All of them are restrictions on the free speech, free movement, or freedom of association of the employer personnel.

Saying you aren't allowed to "ask" someone something is a restriction on speech and association. An employee or a group of employees should have no ability to prevent two other consenting adults what they can and cannot discuss.

We already have laws that prevent threats of bodily harm or illegal surveillance.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

All of them are restrictions on the free speech, free movement, or freedom of association of the employer personnel.

None of those laws prevent free speech or free movement. But while we’re on the subject of free movement, are you in favour of abolishing all laws that restrict employees in exercising their right to strike?

Saying you aren't allowed to "ask" someone something is a restriction on speech and association. An employee or a group of employees should have no ability to prevent two other consenting adults what they can and cannot discuss.

We already have laws that prevent threats of bodily harm or illegal surveillance.

None of those laws prevent an employee from bringing up and discussing whatever they want to discuss with their employer.

Is your argument that your employer should be able to know absolutely everything they want to know about you for any reason?

Are you aware that there are already laws preventing them from doing so in a number of other areas that have nothing to do with Unions? If so, why are you only concerned about it when it relates to Unions?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's a circular argument to say that an altruistic billionaire can allocate capital better than a self-interested one. The billions were accumulated by the billionaire through either her self interest or someone else's self interest. Altruistic allocation of the capital will lead to a depletion of the capital as it is out-competed by more efficiently allocated capital (ie capital with more self-interest associated). This is effectively the socialist concept: gov'ts are a better distributor of capital because they can observe and address the greater good. In practice the idea is a massive flop every time it is tried, without fail.

You are taking an extremist position that pretty much discounts the entire basis of philanthropy. Charitable foundations and philanthropists recognize that they do more good by spending their money on social programs than by simply chasing the most capital growth.

We could, with the right culture, have something like the ancient Athenian system where only wealthiest paid tax and they were proud of it. Thus replacing the greed motive with one of duty and honour. And it would still be capitalist - in their competition to have the most income and thus pay the most tax, the ultra wealthy would make the same capital allocations as they do for self-interest.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

None of those laws prevent free speech or free movement. But while we’re on the subject of free movement, are you in favour of abolishing all laws that restrict employees in exercising their right to strike?



None of those laws prevent an employee from bringing up and discussing whatever they want to discuss with their employer.

Is your argument that your employer should be able to know absolutely everything they want to know about you for any reason?

Are you aware that there are already laws preventing them from doing so in a number of other areas that have nothing to do with Unions? If so, why are you only concerned about it when it relates to Unions?

All of those rules are intended to restrict the freedoms of employers. That's the explicit purpose of the rules. To restrict.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by SebC

You are taking an extremist position that pretty much discounts the entire basis of philanthropy. Charitable foundations and philanthropists recognize that they do more good by spending their money on social programs than by simply chasing the most capital growth.

We could, with the right culture, have something like the ancient Athenian system where only wealthiest paid tax and they were proud of it. Thus replacing the greed motive with one of duty and honour. And it would still be capitalist - in their competition to have the most income and thus pay the most tax, the ultra wealthy would make the same capital allocations as they do for self-interest.

All of this has merit and I agree with you.

However philanthropy (and taxes) are downstream of wealth creation and capital allocation.. You must create the wealth before you can engage in philanthropy.

It's not one or the other. Capitalism is the wellspring for philanthropy.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

All of those rules are intended to restrict the freedoms of employers. That's the explicit purpose of the rules. To restrict.

One more time:

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Is your argument that your employer should be able to know absolutely everything they want to know about you for any reason?

Are you aware that there are already laws preventing them from doing so in a number of other areas that have nothing to do with Unions? If so, why are you only concerned about it when it relates to Unions?

These are pretty straightforward questions.

Also, corporations aren’t people and don’t have the same rights and freedoms as individual citizens. But that’s a whole other discussion.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Regulating corporate profits is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing

So how do you manage the greed component of capitalism to ensure it is directed in society’s best interests?

I see it as taxing the profits to ensure society benefits from the profiteering.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

So how do you manage the greed component of capitalism to ensure it is directed in society’s best interests?

I see it as taxing the profits to ensure society benefits from the profiteering.

How do you manage the greed component of Government? You're looking at some of the most openly corrupt Canadian Governments ever both provincially and federally.

I always find it interesting when people demand Government intervention to curb Corporate greed and then those Corporations buy off those Governments and we're right back where we started.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

So how do you manage the greed component of capitalism to ensure it is directed in society’s best interests?

I see it as taxing the profits to ensure society benefits from the profiteering.

Manage the greed? You don't

Taxing profits assumes that the govt can allocate that capital more efficiently. It can't

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

One more time:



These are pretty straightforward questions.

Also, corporations aren’t people and don’t have the same rights and freedoms as individual citizens. But that’s a whole other discussion.

I thought it was obvious that "employer" means the people that represent the employer

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

So how do you manage the greed component of capitalism to ensure it is directed in society’s best interests?

I see it as taxing the profits to ensure society benefits from the profiteering.

He literally does not give a #### about societies best interests. He only cares about greed and maximizing personal benefit. Which is why at some point, when wealth consolidation reaches a truly disgusting level, that these people end up shot or in a guillotine and balance is restored for a short time. The only thing protecting the wealthy is the consolidation is below that level currently, but we see signs of us approaching that. Buckle up. People can only tolerate so much before the reset switch is pressed. Current examples exist all over the Middle East and Africa.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Is your argument that your employer should be able to know absolutely everything they want to know about you for any reason?

Are you aware that there are already laws preventing them from doing so in a number of other areas that have nothing to do with Unions? If so, why are you only concerned about it when it relates to Unions?

My argument is that unions shouldn't get special treatment that infringes on the rights of other individuals

I am aware that there are laws as you describe. They should apply to union and non union situations equally