Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

True. Unions reduce underpayment. They also, if you have effective management, allow voice effects which can eek out further productivity effects.

As a boss I was always been pro-union and ensured that they were part of decision making processes

 

Which companies were destroyed?

As I recall the British unions support the Labor party, not the Tories.

 

We saw massive negative deindistrialisation. Whole communities were destroyed. Ironically part of it was an attack on the Unions (who had brought down previous Tory government)

 

You're free to continue with your "perfect pictures" of what capitalism "should" be and to keep pretending that politics and culture are some kind of independent things that stand above and apart from the economy. I know better.

 

Taking pot-shots at "the gummint" is child's play - mostly from the Rabid Right. Perhaps they'd like Washington run like state of Alabama.

There is always a government influence on economic performance, but frankly I'd not put much credit to it.

The largest spender of any government sector is the DoD, which squanders more than half the Discretionary Budget. The rest is dribs 'n drabs of minor expenditures by the other agencies. See here:


So, I really have to laugh when some Replicant politicos rail on about "wasted government expenditure", but the DoD is never pointed the finger of blame!

In any competently run government, it is not the Defense Agency that should be the major expenditure item. They are necessary only in times when war is threatened.

Otherwise, Defence Agenicy funding is a sink-hole for funds that could be far better spent elsewhere.

Like a national health-care service or free tertiary education for our youth - both of which would be of a far greater benefit to the nation as a whole ...

 

minimum income for those who cant work is fine, especially if we are not encouraging them reproduce the same qualities.

 

total perfect 100% absence of thought and subversive which is 100% typical of brain dead communism. Nuclear submarines, ABM system, fighter planes, etc must constantly be improved to stay ahead of the liberal communist enemy. Of course an internal communist enemy would not want us to stay ahead of his foreign communist friends.

 

The NIT doesn't include for those who can't work'. Its given to all those that do not work. That's the whole point!

 

obviously depends on whose version you are talking about and when you are talking about it. 1+1=2

 

Friedman's 'version'. You don't seem to know anything about it. Crikey, you didn't even know it necessarily created a minimum income.

 

Friedman's version was conceptual with most details left out

 

Friedman's 'version' (chortle, chortle) has already been described in full. Integration of tax and benefit systems necessarily creates a minimum income. Its of course a shame that you didn't realise that. Real shame!

 

where?????

 

Here you go...

"This is a painfully inept reply. The negative income tax, by integrating tax and benefit systems, is aimed at avoiding poverty and unemployment traps (ie effective marginal rates of tax that approach, or even exceed 100%). That integration, by definition, generates a minimum income.

Perhaps you need to get your crayons out? Do the following:

(1) Draw axis. Label horizontal line 'pre welfare income' and vertical line 'post welfare income

(2) Draw a 45 degree line.

(3) Draw negative income tax line which is shallower than 45 degree line.

(4) Add labels: minimum income (where the NIT line crosses the vertical axis); tax effect (use slope of NIT line) and threshold (where NIT line crosses the 45 degree line, such that you have the income where net welfare effect is zero)

Use coloured crayons if it helps!"

 

you said it was spelled out in detail?? Where is the detail??

 

Can't you draw? That tells you precisely what the NIT does and how it creates a minimum income.

 

you said there were details but it appears you have none? Getting tired of losing??

 

Chortle, chortle, I informed you precisely how the NIT works. I used that to show the stupidity of suggesting the NIT didn't support a minimum income. That he analysis originates from Friedman is a bonus!

 

You can't tell the difference between Georgism and geoism. We already knew that. You don't have to keep making a fool of yourself to remind us.

 

HAHAHA! Geoism on these forums is the effort to hide from George's irrelevance.

 

You clearly know nothing whatever about it. Unlike you, I have actual experience in business, both union and non-union, foreign and domestic. Executives in American companies are generally more competent than executives in Japanese ones, but even when Japanese workers are unionized, which they often are, they are not greedy, adversarial $#!+s like unionized American ones.

Mondragon is worker owned. They employ themselves, and have so far been smart enough not to bankrupt themselves. Union workers in companies they don't own, by contrast, have no reason not to bankrupt their employers, as long as the job losses don't exceed the natural attrition rate.

 

If George is so irrelevant, why do you insert his name into every discussion so relentlessly?

 

Yes, actually, they are facts when they are true, as mine is.

 

I don't. Please don't fib. I do, however, love how you bring up Georgism oh so carefully!