Muda69

https://mises.org/wire/why-empowering-organized-labor-will-definitely-not-help-economy As he often does, Krugman presents a scenario of a prosperous America in which organized labor helped create a productive and happy society, although one might question his knowledge of history. He writes: While he is partly correct in his statement, Krugman then paints an alternate picture of history, claiming, in effect, that the source of economic growth is high factor prices. First, and most important (and maybe most shocking), the 1930s constituted the Great Depression, when unemployment was in double digits and living standards for many Americans fell from their levels a decade before. The notion that the Roosevelt administration “created” a middle class by putting people out of work is preposterous on its face. Second, Robert Higgs forcefully destroyed the lie that the US economy during World War II brought prosperity and helped turn the country into a “middle-class nation.” Such thinking only can reflect a mindset that sees the US economy as being “managed” by the state, and that middle-class incomes are solely a function of state power to confiscate income from some and turn it over to others. To take a time when the nation was in an economic crisis and later involved in the most destructive war in history and then present it as a permanent model for society is perverse beyond words. To better understand why Krugman would write such things, we need to understand his view of the economy, a view shared, apparently, by most political, academic, and social elites in this country. In the Krugman view—and I will try to keep from veering into presenting a caricature of his beliefs—private enterprise rests on a tenuous foundation. Like J.M. Keynes, he believes that the economy is circular in nature. More than a decade ago, I wrote that Krugman and others see the economy as being like a “perpetual motion machine” in which individual savings actually work against economic prosperity: I continue: Krugman has used this analysis to explain every economic downturn, including the Great Depression, and since he left the Princeton University faculty to dedicate his academic work to examining what he calls income inequality, he has doubled down on his rhetoric. In his view, business firms create goods which people purchase, and the income ultimately flows back to business owners, making them wealthy. As long as these wealthy business owners continue to spend all of their income either on consumption goods or new capital, the economy can move along. The likelihood of that chain of events happening, however, is near zero and, instead, the wealthy often will save (read: hoard) much of their income. Instead of buying cars, yachts, jewelry, and whatever else the rich like to purchase, and instead of putting back the rest of their income to purchase new capital or replenish existing capital, they stuff the money into nonproductive accounts and don’t spend at all. On top of that, Krugman holds to the Thomas Piketty theme that over time wealthy people receive increasing returns to the capital they own so that we see the proverbial scenario of “the rich getting richer and the poor becoming poorer.” Once that becomes a guiding narrative, of course, everything that happens seems to fulfill the Krugman-Piketty theme. Over time, hoarding by the rich throws sand into the gears of the perpetual motion machine, grinding the economy to a halt and throwing it into recession. While pundits like Karl Marx, Keynes, and Krugman will deviate among themselves as to the causes of economic downturns, they generally agree that the system implodes from within and only can be turned around by massive governmental involvement. The Keynes-Krugman “solution” to this obvious problem is for government to create a system of massive wealth transfers from the wealthy to everyone else. High wages generated through labor union activism, high marginal tax rates, and a huge welfare system serve to take income away from the wealthy, give it to others who will continue to spend and keep the perpetual motion machine well oiled and moving. Thus, high taxes and high wages obtained via coercive activities by organized labor actually help everyone from the poorest people to the wealthy business owners. Lower-income people receive money, goods, and services while the wealthy find that their enterprises flourish when people have more money to spend. It is win-win for everyone. Given his tendency to mangle economic history, it is not surprising that Krugman falsely blames Ronald Reagan for the decline of labor unions just as he falsely claims that organized labor created prosperity. He writes: First, and most important, union membership as a percentage of the population had declined ever since its peak in the post–World War II economy. In the early 1950s, about a third of US workers were in unions, but by 1980, that number had declined to about 20 percent. Union membership did decline during the Reagan years, but that decline continued even after eight years of Bill Clinton, who had the enthusiastic support of organized labor. The graph below shows the pattern. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics As one can see, union membership fell drastically in the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, a time when the US economy went through two recessions, which at that time meant the loss of unionized manufacturing jobs. The Reagan-killed-the-unions myth came about because of Reagan’s response to the air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981. The union, which had the acronym PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), actually endorsed Reagan in 1980 (along with the Teamsters—because Reagan agreed to delay trucking deregulation for two years, something Krugman ignores). In August 1981, the union struck, throwing airline traffic into mass confusion. (I flew from New York City to Atlanta the first weekend of the strike, and it definitely was a chaotic time.) Reagan responded by firing the striking workers and ordering the hiring of new controllers. The strike quickly was broken, along with PATCO, and air travel soon returned to normal. Democrats accused Reagan of “union busting” and worse. It is difficult to place the PATCO incident in larger context, since PATCO was a relatively small union and it represented government employees whose illegal actions (it was against the law for federal employees to go on strike) had serious consequences on flight travel and endangered the jobs and safety of airline employees, many of them unionized themselves. Nonetheless, entities like the New York Times chose to take the view that this was the turning point in labor history, an event that permanently changed the landscape for organized labor. However, there is another explanation that doesn’t require the invocation of symbols. In late 1981 and through much of 1982, the US economy suffered through a massive recession, one that altered much of the economic landscape in this country. For example, much of the steel industry that once defined cities like Pittsburgh and Allentown in Pennsylvania and Youngstown, Ohio, closed shop and did not reopen. This recession hit the unionized sectors hard and had a significant effect in unionized jobs in domestic steel, automobiles, and textiles. This was not by design (in other words, the recession was not a Reagan-organized conspiracy) but rather the result of excesses that had built up over the years that slowly made these industries uncompetitive. According to US Department of Labor statistics, the highest rates of unemployment during the 1982 recession came in construction (20 percent), manufacturing (12.3 percent), and mining (13.4 percent), along with agriculture (14.5 percent). All of these lines of production are tied to capital goods and are highly unionized. While all of these sectors did rebound during the recovery, which began in 1983, the scope of manufacturing changed in the USA, especially in the automobile industry. During the recession of 1982, not only did the sale of domestic automobiles fall drastically, but sales of Japanese-owned Toyota, Honda, and Nissan rose almost 30 percent from the late 1970s into the early 1980s. Ford Motor Company’s employment alone fell by about 46 percent due to the recession. The recession alone would have had a devastating effect on union employment, an effect much more significant than the failed PATCO strike. To further accelerate the drop in union employment, President Jimmy Carter’s massive deregulation efforts in the latter years of his term in office would ultimately change the scope of competition in passenger airlines, trucking, railroads, and telecommunications, all highly unionized industries. It is much harder for labor unions to organize workforces in competitive industries than it is in industries that are made legal monopolies, which is what the regulatory systems governing these industries actually did. Take trucking for example. Before passage of the 1980 Motor Carrier Act, there were about 1.3 million truck drivers, with the industry dominated by the Teamsters Union. After deregulation swept away many barriers to entry, the number of truck drivers had increased to 3.5 million by 2018. Not surprisingly, average real pay of truck drivers is not as high as it was when they mostly were unionized and the industry kept artificially small. However, contra Krugman, the current dearth of unionized drivers is not due to newly discovered hardball tactics of employers but rather the realities of competition, and one of the results has been that unit costs of rail and surface transportation have fallen in real terms in the past forty years, which has contributed greatly to a higher standard of living. All of these examples present a much more clear picture of the decline of organized labor in private industries than Krugman’s “The Evil Ronald Reagan Did It” narrative. One can excuse a union partisan for such ignorance, but when a Nobel-winning economist makes such an erroneous pronouncement, the only proper response is outright scorn and derision. Indeed, we should be thankful that, at least in private industry, organized labor has lost the stranglehold it once had in this country. Unions gained drastically after 1935 due to passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Roosevelt administration's backing of organized labor. Furthermore, unions gained their share in the labor force during World War II, when it became next to necessary for businesses to accept unions in order to be eligible for federal contracts, which often were the only production game in town. Contrary to what Krugman might argue, the mercurial growth of organized labor in the US workforce was much more the work of government prodding and outright coercion than it was a natural progression of the American workplace. Given that, perhaps we should not be surprised to know that less than a decade after World War II ended, unions as a percentage of private employment in this country began to decline, and that downward path has continued for more than six decades. While the Joe Biden administration no doubt wants to boost union fortunes—Biden even calling for a federal version of the disastrous AB 5 in California, which put a lot of people out of work—one doubts that the president can make much of a difference. The reason for the decline of unions in this country has not gone away, and it isn’t Ronald Reagan. Agreed. Private sector labor unions provide no real service anymore, other than the pad the pockets it's organizers and management. And Public Sector Unions should be made illegal, and their very existence is a massive conflict of interest.

I'm not your search engine Dante, and those posts are probably on one of the earlier defunct versions of the GID. But all of us here who have discussed governmental/political systems with you before remember your fondness for a Benevolent Monarchy.

Steve McMichael announces he has ALS https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/23/ex-bear-steve-mcmichael-announces-he-has-als/ One of my favorite Bears of all time. Awful for "Mongo" to have to deal with this new challenge. My thought will be with him and his family.

The NCC is a basketball conference, always has been and always will be. There was a time when every member of the conference had won at least one (real) Indiana state basketball championship. Hence it's nickname "The Conference Of Champions".

https://mises.org/wire/are-monarchies-better-economic-growth-heres-what-empirical-evidence-says A Comparative Analysis Quite interesting is that research confirms the assumption of Hoppe. According to Mauro Guillen monarchies are more effective than democratic republics at protecting property rights primarily because of their long-term focus. “Monarchies tend to be dynasties, and therefore have a long-term focus,” Guillen says. “If you focus on the long run, you are bound to be more protective of property rights…. You’re more likely to put term limits on politicians that want to abuse their powers. Queen Elizabeth of the UK has exercised her constitutional role admirably in keeping the country’s prime ministers in check, whenever they seemed to overextend their reach.” Similarly, Guillen in his study points out that as symbols of national unity, monarchies curtail the negative consequences of internal conflict on property rights: We can attribute the success of political and economic transitions under monarchies to the high levels of trust cultivated by the cultural legacy of hereditary rule. As a source of national pride, monarchs can rely on the power of sentiment to invite support for controversial reforms. Indeed, research suggests monarchies are enhanced by such measures. Christian Bjørnskov and Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard in their publication “Economic Growth and Institution Reform in Modern Monarchies and Republics: A Historical Cross-Country Perspective, 1820–2000,” present fascinating information: “While large-scale political reforms are typically associated with short term growth declines, reflecting what has become known as the “valley of tears,” the data indicate that this valley does not appear in monarchies. In fact, if anything it has the opposite effect.” Moreover, the rating agency Standard and Poor's asserts that monarchies have stronger credit scores and impressive balance sheets relative to republics. Credit analyst Joydeep Mukherji submits that there is no difference between constitutional and absolute monarchies in the assessment of their debt risk. “However, absolute monarchies score higher than constitutional monarchies in external risk and fiscal risk, largely reflecting the strong general government balance sheets and high external asset positions of wealthy monarchies in the eastern Arab world,’’ he noted. Like Gullien, Victor Menaldo in “The Middle East and North Africa’s resilient monarchs” posits that monarchies are linked to respect for the rule of law, protection of property rights, and economic growth. As Menaldo shows, the predictability of the political culture embedded by monarchies positively affects the decision to invest: “Given the emergence of a stable political culture … elites and citizens will be encouraged to protect their planning horizons due to longer executive tenures and an institutional succession process. Both elites and citizens will be more likely to make the investments in physical and human capital that encourage capital accumulation and increases in productivity.” Another argument in favor of monarchies is their intolerance for wars, since involvement in warfare has the potential to eviscerate wealth. Though comparing political systems based on the likelihood to wage war is rare, one study written by leading political scientists intuits that premodern monarchies were less likely to fight wars: Yet, suggesting that monarchies display superior characteristics relative to democratic republics does not mean that we should return to the past. However, one cannot criticize monarchy without understanding its strengths and limitations. Dante's dream still has hope of becoming true some day?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/usps-spying-social-media-posts-reporting-to-government So is this how the USPS finally turns a profit?

Experts Agree That Outdoor Post-Vaccination Masking Is Useless https://reason.com/2021/04/22/experts-agree-that-outdoor-post-vaccination-masking-is-useless/ Earlier this week, The Washington Post reached the same conclusion: The evidence is clear: COVID-19 is a disease that spreads when humans breathe, talk, laugh, and sing in each other's faces during close contact—particularly indoors, in poorly ventilated spaces. The outdoors, on the other hand, are associated with very little transmission. Moreover, the vaccinated are essentially immune from severe disease and death, and their odds of contracting the virus at all are very low. Their odds of spreading the disease are even lower. Vaccinated people who have incidental contact with other people outside are not going to spread the virus, and requiring people to mask up during such circumstances is pointless. That's not a matter of opinion: It's the expert consensus. If you don't want to hear it, then you aren't listening to the science. Government policy makers take heed; it is long past time to end COVID-19 restrictions—especially the ones that aren't even serving any actual public health purpose. I guess this year's running of the Indianapolis 500, where 135,00 fans are expected, will be a good test of this. Will people be dying in droves 2-4 weeks after the event?

What did the farmer say when all of his haystacks were stolen? This is the last straw.

Biden's Plan to Stop Ghost Guns Is Doomed To Fail: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/22/bidens-plan-to-stop-ghost-guns-is-doomed-to-fail/?post_type=video

Yes, that is a perfect way to describe you, friend.

I didn't take it out of context, friend. Stop being so defensive and own up to what you typed. Please explain.

Your original quote: The attempt at a correlation is there for anybody with a modicum of critical reading comprehension skills to see, friend.

And what would that be, exactly?

COVID-19 Hygiene Theater Is Out of Control https://reason.com/2021/04/22/covid-19-hygiene-theater-is-out-of-control/

https://reason.com/2021/04/21/can-cops-pull-you-over-for-hanging-an-air-freshener-from-your-rearview-mirror-youd-better-check/ We are truly living in a Police State.

Exactly. While the "elite" kickoff and punt returners are nice, and this is a role I envision Mr. Moore can fill, we need an elite level quarterback.

Surely the deep pockets of the agricultural elites around Royal Center can spare a few shekels to improve the press box and surrounding facilities of the one of the most powerful small school football programs in the state?

Correlation is not causation, friend.

No, Hank Azaria Doesn’t Have to Apologize to Indian Americans for Apu https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/no-hank-azaria-doesnt-have-to-apologize-to-indian-americans-for-apu/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in-tag&utm_term=third But the Apu wars preceded Azaria’s latest self-flagellation. They largely began with The Problem with Apu, a documentary/comedy written and produced by Hari Kondabolu, an Indian-American stand-up comedian. The movie lays out the case that Apu has become a symbol of racial stereotypes and bigotry, and that the character has propagated prejudice against Asian Americans — Indian Americans in particular. From early on, I said that Kondabolu was off base. Here is what I wrote initially in April 2018: Some quickly condemned my position, and others simply attacked it as blind and ignorant. Meanwhile, the producers of The Simpsons seemed to be on my side, though eventually the controversy resulted in the predictable Hollywood response: They virtually killed off Apu from the popular animated show. For the showrunners, who probably believe Apu is a respectable, lovable character, a war with the woke mob wasn’t worth the effort. Azaria has been attacked for his participation in this supposed atrocity as well. He initially politely appeared on Kondabolu’s documentary, but was largely blindsided by the complaints. He then was criticized for not providing satisfactory responses to claims of racism and bigotry. Again, as expected, rather than continuing to fight the thankless war against the woke mob, Azaria simply raised the white flag of surrender. In 2018, he decided to permanently stop voicing the character. Unsurprisingly, that didn’t end the saga for Azaria. Charges of racism have dogged him ever since. Hence his self-flagellation on the Armchair Expert podcast. Apparently, the ridiculousness never ends. But it should. For one thing, does Azaria really think most Indians give this even the most fleeting, passing thought? The Simpsons is not widely viewed, or even available, in India. There was a short period during the 1990s when the show gained some notoriety there, but mostly because people fell in love with the character of Apu. 1.4 billion Indians don’t really care. The few here in the U.S. who do care have, for the most part, misdiagnosed a problem, and blamed, in an incredible and mind-boggling twist of logic . . . a cartoon character. Ask most kids in high school today about Apu, and you’ll find not only that few have ever watched The Simpsons, but also that few even have a clue who Apu is. The chances that bigots at Azaria’s son’s school are using this character as their primary weapon against Indian-American students are very low. I explored this several years ago, in an informal setting with numerous Indian-American students. I asked what Hollywood character was most used to “insult” their ancestry; the answer was not Apu from The Simpsons. It was Raj, the heavily accented immigrant Indian on The Big Bang Theory. With the end of that show, even that reference is now dated. I have asked various students this question over the years, and I have received very similar responses. Other names that are commonly brought up include Baljeet, an Indian animated character on the Disney show Phineas and Ferb, and Dopinder, the heavily accented taxi driver in the Deadpool films. Apu is almost never brought up as the weapon of choice from the prejudiced attackers. Anyone see a pattern? Bigots care not about what weapon they use to hurt the targets of their attack. They will use anything that is convenient. The characters, therefore, are not the problem; the bigots are. In the days long forgotten, it was the term ‘dotheads’ (referring to the red dots that we Hindus sometimes adorn on our foreheads) that was most commonly used. Additionally, does anyone think the color of the voice actor matters? Azaria has repeatedly claimed that only people of color should voice such characters, but the examples above were voiced by South-Asian actors, and the targeting still occurred. The only other solution is . . . to never show Indian characters at all, correct? The fact that, years after Azaria left the character of Apu behind, he still feels compelled to apologize (apparently, personally to every Indian soul, which means about one-sixth of the entire population of the planet) shows how ludicrous the social-media mob has become. Azaria conceded the point to progressives, did exactly what they wanted him to do, and is still dogged by the controversy. There is no pleasing the left-wing mob. As for Azaria apologizing: Most Indians would not know who he was, and wouldn’t care. But I am not most Indians. I would love a personal visit by Hank Azaria to my home so that he could apologize to me and my family. I can’t imagine anything would be more satisfying than meeting one of my comedic heroes in person, the great and everlasting voice of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. As one of the Indian Americans who has been most targeted for his position on this issue, I think I deserve an apology. Give me a call, Hank. We can make it happen.

How exactly? Most of those schools are in the same boat as the Terre Haute schools; rather large high schools surrounded by miles of mostly rural country where much, much, smaller high schools are the norm.

FYI Arsenal Tech was a charter member of the North Central Conference when it first formed in 1926.

Ok, I have had that feeling for over a year now. Government is always looking a reason to clamp down on individual liberty.

Michigan Moving To Make 'Emergency' COVID-19 Mandates Permanent https://reason.com/2021/04/16/michigan-moving-to-make-emergency-covid-19-mandates-permanent/?itm_source=parsely-api Agreed. Our family was planning a summer vacation to norther Michigan in a few months. Those plans may change to not include Michigan if these overly restrictive regulations on businesses become permanent.

https://apnews.com/article/maxine-waters-comments-derek-chauvin-trial-c7813707962c9f723c75db54605bad2c The honorable Mr. Cahill's statements are correct. Ms. Waters needs to STHU and go back to California and actually represent here constituents for once. She is nothing but a racial instigator.