2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Heald]

Romney is the most likely candidate. Which, with his vast fortune, should make for an interesting contest in terms of campaigning.

McCain was a horrible presidential candidate, but he rocked as a senator. I really really wished he had just stayed out his career as a somewhat maverick, affable politician that everyone liked. Instead he'll be remembered as a loser.

[Dark Sage]

The latest poll, the Rasmussen National Poll, was taken today.

It shows Obama and Romney virtually tied, at 42% each.

I guess anything could happen from this point on.

[kurai]

P-p-polling!

Fresh off his near-win in Iowa, Rick Santorum has leaped to double-digits in The Washington Times/JZ Analytics Poll, taken Wednesday, more than tripling his support from last week.

“We’re seeing an Iowa bounce, clearly, already for Santorum,” said John Zogby, who conducted the one-day poll, taken the day after Iowa’s caucuses propelled for former senator to a second-place showing, just 8 votes shy of winner Mitt Romney.

Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, still holds a commanding lead over the field in Iowa with 38 percent support, followed by Rep. Ron Paul at 24 percent and Mr. Santorum at 11 percent — much better than the 3 percent he polled last week.

Fading quickly is former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who had 9 percent support in the new poll, while former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. had 8 percent support.

Iowa’s shock results — Mr. Santorum surged in the final two weeks to notch his stunning near-victory, while Mr. Paul placed a strong third — haven’t fully played out yet in New Hampshire, where voters still have five more days before they go to the polls Jan. 10.

Mr. Zogby said Mr. Santorum and Mr. Paul both have room to grow their support, but Mr. Romney remains strong, holding a lead across most demographics. His support also appears to be deep. Almost all of his backers said they are unlikely to change their minds between now and primary day.

“It looks preliminarily like Romney’s showing in Iowa may be enough to consolidate his support in New Hampshire,” Mr. Zogby said.

The poll of 498 likely primary voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

One exception to Mr. Romney’s broad support is among single people, where Mr. Paul was backed by about half of all single voters. Mr. Paul also led among self-identified liberals, while Mr. Romney collected about 40 percent of moderates and 40 percent of conservatives.

But all eyes will be on Mr. Santorum going forward.

The 11 percent Mr. Santorum polled on Wednesday is equivalent to the percentage of primary voters Mike Huckabee won in New Hampshire in 2008, fresh off his own caucus win in Iowa. Mr. Santorum will want to beat that level of support to prove he has staying power.

Mr. Romney won 32 percent of the vote here in 2008, but lost out to Sen. John McCain, who took 37 percent and went on to win his party’s nomination.

Where Mr. McCain did well with self-identified moderates last time, Mr. Romney is doing well this time, Mr. Zogby said.

The Times/JZ Analytics Poll also found tea party voters feeling much more pragmatic than expected. Among those who said they were sympathetic to the tea party, 58 percent also said they were ready to back a candidate who doesn’t share all their views but could beat President Obama in November.

By contrast, voters not sympathetic to the tea party were more likely to be ideologically driven, with only about 40 percent saying beating the president was more important than picking someone who shared all their views.

That focus on electability makes New Hampshire different from Iowa, where the networks’ entrance polls showed only about 30 percent of all voters said beating Mr. Obama was their top factor in choosing a nominee. Mr. Romney won nearly half of those voters in Iowa.

Cross-tabs some time tomorrow (pending review).

[Dark Sage]

News on the GOP homefront...

Rick Perry is to announce today that he will drop out of the race.

IMOHO, good riddance to bad Republican.

[firepokemon]

Hmm things have turned round for Gingrich. But I can't see him getting the swing voters or even any democrats on side. I don't understand the republican primary race at all. Most of the candidates have been absolutely terrible. Romney seems best suited to me and actually I think he could govern better than Obama. I just can't see him winning at all either.

[Roy Karrde]

Hmm things have turned round for Gingrich. But I can't see him getting the swing voters or even any democrats on side. I don't understand the republican primary race at all. Most of the candidates have been absolutely terrible. Romney seems best suited to me and actually I think he could govern better than Obama. I just can't see him winning at all either.

I think there is going to be a X factor if Romney wins, much like there was the X factor of the economic break down for Obama to win. The X factor will probably be a economic catastrophe of some type, either Europe falling apart which could begin as soon as March, or China's economic bubble bursting. Either one of those could have dire effects on our economy and drive people to the voting booths in droves like they did for Obama in 2008, only this time to replace him.

[Gavin Luper]

Okay, so clearly Mitt Romney is an idiot.

I'm inclined to overwhelmingly agree (this is probably a first) with Fidel Castro, who wrote:

"The selection of a Republican candidate for president of that globalized and encompassing empire is, I say this seriously, the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been heard."

Hear, hear!

[Dark Sage]

Something new in the news:

The Newt Gingrich campaign has admitted the candidate was wrong when he claimed the campaign had provided character witnesses to rebut his second ex-wife's claim Gringrich wanted an "open marriage."

He "was wrong"? He was lying.

Newt Gingrich… Liar, adulterer, hypocrite… A man who wants to hold the office of President.

It just doesn't add up...

[Roy Karrde]

Something new in the news:

The Newt Gingrich campaign has admitted the candidate was wrong when he claimed the campaign had provided character witnesses to rebut his second ex-wife's claim Gringrich wanted an "open marriage."

He "was wrong"? He was lying.

Newt Gingrich… Liar, adulterer, hypocrite… A man who wants to hold the office of President.

It just doesn't add up...

So he is running on the Bill Clinton platform?

[Dark Sage]

Bill Clinton is still married to his first wife.

Here's something else about Gingrich to think about. He told a crowd in Florida that he would establish a permanent base on the moon if he became President, which is likely the stupidest campaign promise ever made.

If the moon were made of solid gold, we still would not make a profit by setting up a mining colony there, because the cost of making trips to and from the moon is too expensive. The reason that there hasn't been a moon trip since 1972 is simple; there's nothing there that makes it worthwhile.

[Roy Karrde]

Bill Clinton is still married to his first wife.

Yeah but that didn't stop him from having affairs.

Here's something else about Gingrich to think about. He told a crowd in Florida that he would establish a permanent base on the moon if he became President, which is likely the stupidest campaign promise ever made.

If the moon were made of solid gold, we still would not make a profit by setting up a mining colony there, because the cost of making trips to and from the moon is too expensive. The reason that there hasn't been a moon trip since 1972 is simple; there's nothing there that makes it worthwhile.

Here is something I do not get, how did the party of Kennedy, one of the greatest visionaries of our time when it came to the space program. Become utterly anti space. Is it costly? Sure. But it is exploration, it is going beyond our planet's orbit. It is making leaps and bounds to see what is out there. In relative terms, it is no where near as expensive as some of the other things our Government does, and it involves the advancement of man kind.

Not to mention there are intangibles, discoveries made along the way that we will all profit from. Space nuts could go down a whole list of products and discoveries made from the space program and working to get a man to the moon that we now use.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, the moon is beautiful to look at.

But the billions of taxpayer money that it would cost to establish a lunar colony could be much better spent on reducing unemployment and trying to fix Social Security. Or finding a Healthcare program that everyone can agree on, for crying out loud.

Up close, the moon is nothing but a big rock.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, the moon is beautiful to look at.

But the billions of taxpayer money that it would cost to establish a lunar colony could be much better spent on reducing unemployment and trying to fix Social Security. Or finding a Healthcare program that everyone can agree on, for crying out loud.

Up close, the moon is nothing but a big rock.

Note what you said, billions, not trillions, billions, with those billions you put thousands if not millions of people to work on fabricating materials, on creating new space ships, on research, on creating new jet fuel that can take us to Mars, on millions of new things. And on top of that it continues what this country was based on, to explore, to further humanity, to keep going.

And of course there are alot worse things to waste money on, California's High Speed Train just to name something off the top of my head.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, all those jobs you mentioned require college degrees at least, and some require doctorates. An active space program is not going to help the average out-of-work laborer.

[Blademaster]

I say we colonize Venus. It's a bit farther than the Moon, sure, but all those noxious gases and compounds are probably useful. Carbon dioxide grows plants that we eat and build with. Sulfuric acid is used to make phosphate fertilizers that feed the plants. Nitrogen and methane are fuel sources that can run the plants to and from Venus.

Hell, we could probably suspend some solar-powered shit in the upper Venusian atmosphere and start a farming colony. Sunlight hits front of colony and powers it. Other sunlight hits Venus and bounces off, hitting back of colony and double powering it. We explore space AND solve world hunger. Very slowly. But progress is progress.

...Who knows, maybe in the long run we could use enough of Venus's garbage to cool the place down enough to make into another habitable planet.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, all those jobs you mentioned require college degrees at least, and some require doctorates. An active space program is not going to help the average out-of-work laborer.

If you want middle class jobs then you are coming at it the wrong way. Money isn't required to stimulate that, reforming regulation and lowering taxes will spur the job market we already have. Throwing money at the problem only ends up in disaster like Solyndra.

What this does though, not only provides jobs for the space program and the manufactures, it also inspires kids to get into Science and Math, something we have been failing to do for decades.

We can become a country like China or India where we have a shit load of jobs that only require two working hands, but if we want to be a country that also leads the way in Math and Science in paving the way for humanity. Then this is a wonderful opportunity.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, let me tell you what China's work force is like, and why they get all the contracts.

The factories are owned by the government. The laborers live in dormatories, work twelve-hour shifts, six days a week, and have to be on call 24/7. They get paid the equivalent of $17 a day. And the government has no unions to worry about.

Sure, it's inhumane, and in this country would be illegal... But using this system, as strange as it sounds, they are far more productive than any American company. They produce more.

That's why all the work goes to China. How the heck are American companies supposed to compete with THAT?

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, let me tell you what China's work force is like, and why they get all the contracts.

The factories are owned by the government. The laborers live in dormatories, work twelve-hour shifts, six days a week, and have to be on call 24/7. They get paid the equivalent of $17 a day. And the government has no unions to worry about.

Sure, it's inhumane, and in this country would be illegal... But using this system, as strange as it sounds, they are far more productive than any American company. They produce more.

That's why all the work goes to China. How the heck are American companies supposed to compete with THAT?

How we deal with that? Many companies WANT to work in America, yes we have shifted away from cheap labor and in a way became a nation of wimps. But if we want those jobs back we need to meet these companies in the middle, pull back unions, if not have no unions at all, pull back regulations, allow tax breaks and more incentives to companies that want to create "Made in America" products.

We don't need a slave labor force like China, but we do need to swing away from the extreme working conditions that have driven jobs away. Hell I mean look at the Hoover Dam, it was Government created yes, but it was also made at a speed and in conditions that would not be able to work today. The same goes for things like the old Empire State Building.

Frankly we just are not a survivable country with the conditions, regulations, and laws we have in place.

[Dark Sage]

Oddly enough, I don't disagree with you.

And the GOP wants to shrink government, which would make that idea you just proposed impossible.

[Roy Karrde]

Oddly enough, I don't disagree with you.

And the GOP wants to shrink government, which would make that idea you just proposed impossible.

Actually just the opposite it would actually make it happen. Not only has the Government played a hand in this it has played a massive hand with its over regulation, combined with out of control branches of the Government like the EPA. And of course lets not forget the damage that has been done to us by the National Labor Relations Board. You want to make this start happening you not only have to trim back the size of Government in terms of regulations, but you have to use the NLRB to pull back the power of unions in this country instead of enhancing it.

[kurai]

hmm, this "middle ground" is quite the reserved proposal. yes, the most advantageous position between Greedy Union Fatcats and you-will-be-murdered-for-unionizing is certainly "no unions at all"! O, MNC overlords, please be so gracious as to bestow Any Job At Any Wage onto our weak and pitiful souls!

no one just wants "a job". the default position of employment under current globalized economic conditions is that of slave labour (how can you think otherwise given the conditions with which you seek to compete?). to achieve a sustainably decent job, you would, of course, need to be able to use leverage to negotiate with capital, which is not possible for the individual unskilled laborer - the local surplus reserve of labour and the draw of inexpensive production elsewhere ensures this.

you need both collectivized leverage and (some form of) trade protectionism/capital controls to ensure domestic sustainability. it is your own noose of free trade and anti-union sentiment that has reduced the position of (manufacturing) labour in america to a lesser position than the least developed, least educated workforces elsewhere.

the washington consensus arose from washington. what a monstrous claim that these dogs are just not hungry enough when taken alongside the decades-long processes that have been undertaken in order to find the most starving. they will fight for the smallest scraps!

let us allow capital to fly away, exploit the periphery for the maximum possible profit, and then cry when the centre is no longer sustainable. yes! more freedom for capital is needed to correct this degrading sequence of events!

[Roy Karrde]

you need both collectivized leverage and (some form of) trade protectionism/capital controls to ensure domestic sustainability. it is your own noose of free trade and anti-union sentiment that has reduced the position of (manufacturing) labour in america to a lesser position than the least developed, least educated workforces elsewhere.

And yet not only do employers disagree with you, but they are refusing to come back to America because of it. Labor has run amok in many ways, and as such we have become a country in which the simplest accomplishments are no longer really viable neither in the private sector or the public sector.

This isn't 1908 in which sweatshops existed and people were exploited, the Unions have thankfully done away with that. The problem is that now they have gone far beyond that, to the point that they do far more damage than good.

[kurai]

yes, of course employers disagree with the notion that profit should be sacrificed in the aid of labour, through either enforced policy or motivated negotiation. since neither is present, no sacrifice is made (thus no 'good job'). employment is nonetheless absent, as a consequence of neoliberal trade policy (thus no 'job' at all). what point are you trying to make?

of course sweatshops and exploitation still exist. that is how your products are manufactured - that is the condition under which an unorganized workforce operates. that's the competitive standard that american labour has to meet in order for capital to voluntarily return - since it largely lacks mobilization, it can make no additional demands.

the core premise of 'more harm than good' is fairly ridiculous. american unions are not even powerful enough to motivate policy towards an actually beneficial direction, they are a non-issue viewed only through negative rhetoric (even though this runs counter to the current material conditions of capitalism and the history of the labour movement). with the lack of domestic-oriented economic policy, the notion of capital addressing the demands of labour is nonsensical, but this is a consequence of america's global imposition of free trade and unrestrained capital flows (thus the washington consensus mentioned above).

(are you trying to argue that targeted protectionism can not provide domestic growth/employment, and unionization can not improve the material conditions of the labourer? there are some historical examples to the contrary.)

[Roy Karrde]

yes, of course employers disagree with the notion that profit should be sacrificed in the aid of labour, through either enforced policy or motivated negotiation. since neither is present, no sacrifice is made (thus no 'good job'). employment is nonetheless absent, as a consequence of neoliberal trade policy (thus no 'job' at all). what point are you trying to make?

My point is that if we want Employers to actually look at furthering employment here, we need to start to address some of their concerns. Make America attractive to build at, instead of having them turn their heads elsewhere.

the core premise of 'more harm than good' is fairly ridiculous. american unions are not even powerful enough to motivate policy towards an actually beneficial direction, they are a non-issue viewed only through negative rhetoric (even though this runs counter to the current material conditions of capitalism and the history of the labour movement). with the lack of domestic-oriented economic policy, the notion of capital addressing the demands of labour is nonsensical, but this is a consequence of america's global imposition of free trade and unrestrained capital flows (thus the washington consensus mentioned above).

That is a rather false belief in that they are not able to motivate policy, they have more than enough lackeys in the Democratic party. It is why the NLRB, a board set up to not take sides, has not only been stock full of Labor lackeys but it now passes rulings that have helped labor and hurt business in a myrid of ways.

Or have you forgotten that they have passed rulings allowing for snap elections that puts Employers not even level with unions but at a disadvantage?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/2...election-rule/

How about the fact that they tried suing Boeing just for moving from a Union state to a non union state?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/0...gainst-boeing/

Mind you this is a political board that was supposed to be non objective so do not try to lie and say they have not been able to get their way.

And who could not forget how close we came to actually passing the utterly Anti Democratic "Card Check" bill a few years back.

(are you trying to argue that targeted protectionism can not provide domestic growth/employment, and unionization can not improve the material conditions of the labourer? there are some historical examples to the contrary.)

Protectionism while providing growth can also stimulate a trade war which hurts both sides. And while Labor has improved conditions no doubt, it would be ignorant to say that they still provide necessary conditions and have not moved on to providing perks that have hurt companies and the economy.

[kurai]

in an unregulated environment, the sole "attractive" principle is profit. you have to compete directly to succeed on this level. this means cambodia-level conditions and wages. this is pretty unavoidable without changing the whole paradigm away from pure free marketry, thus the suggestion of protectionism (the case of MITI's embedded autonomy might be interesting for modern america, but there are lots of developmental options to choose from - becoming even more open to capital flow is actually not a successful method in the short or long term [cf. South Africa]). a trade war against a great economic power? only if you voluntarily allow it, which would be par for the course along your current policies...

aside from this, you place comparatively trivial actions of the NLRB as somehow counter to the entirety of global political economy and trade/production practices. it is not a good counter. the important and all-encompassing policies - which allowed for the development of conditions in which you have to directly compete with underdeveloped economies - are the ones which labour failed to successfully oppose. now we find that both its own viability (membership and resources on the decline) and american competitiveness at large suffer for it.

the stifling perks of union demands! if only they had thought to ask for jobs for their members...

[Roy Karrde]

in an unregulated environment, the sole "attractive" principle is profit. you have to compete directly to succeed on this level. this means cambodia-level conditions and wages. this is pretty unavoidable without changing the whole paradigm away from pure free marketry, thus the suggestion of protectionism (the case of MITI's embedded autonomy might be interesting for modern america, but there are lots of developmental options to choose from - becoming even more open to capital flow is actually not a successful method in the short or long term [cf. South Africa]). a trade war against a great economic power? only if you voluntarily allow it, which would be par for the course along your current policies...

You honestly think we would be able to stop a trade war with China? Because please lets be honest that is where it would lead. It would hurt U.S. exports, it would hurt U.S. jobs and damage us in many ways. Or that it would not spur the rest of the world to take on protectionist acts of their own?

aside from this, you place comparatively trivial actions of the NLRB as somehow counter to the entirety of global political economy and trade/production practices. it is not a good counter. the important and all-encompassing policies - which allowed for the development of conditions in which you have to directly compete with underdeveloped economies - are the ones which labour failed to successfully oppose. now we find that both its own viability (membership and resources on the decline) and american competitiveness at large suffer for it.

Trivial? I believe you asked for proof that the Unions have power in Washington, I gave you proof that they not only have power but have corrupted a entire supposed non partisan board that is able to dictate law with out the power of Congress. You may not like it, but the fact is the Union's power base in Washington through the Democratic party is not only large but is dangerous, and with attempts at the NLRB to do things like pull off snap elections or sue companies for moving you invoke enough fear into companies that they refuse to even open up production lines here. Might want to look around, as what the NLRB is doing, is a major reason why that companies are moving away due to the over reaching demand and power that the unions possess.

[Dark Sage]

Last night, Newt Gingrich boasted that he balanced the budget four times when he was speaker.

Really, Mr. Speaker? Here's the truth:

The National Debt went up nearly $1 trillion while Newt Gingrich was Speaker

•In 1994, the year before Gingrich become Speaker the National Debt was $4.693 trillion

•In 1995, the year he become Speaker the debt was $4.974 trillion

•In 1996 the debt was $5.225 trillion

•In 1997 the debt was $5.413 trillion

•In 1998-- the last year of his speakership-- the debt was $5.526 trillion

Newt Gingrich is a filthy liar. Vote for Obama in 2012.

[kurai]

You honestly think we would be able to stop a trade war with China? Because please lets be honest that is where it would lead. It would hurt U.S. exports, it would hurt U.S. jobs and damage us in many ways. Or that it would not spur the rest of the world to take on protectionist acts of their own?

Trivial? I believe you asked for proof that the Unions have power in Washington, I gave you proof that they not only have power but have corrupted a entire supposed non partisan board that is able to dictate law with out the power of Congress. You may not like it, but the fact is the Union's power base in Washington through the Democratic party is not only large but is dangerous, and with attempts at the NLRB to do things like pull off snap elections or sue companies for moving you invoke enough fear into companies that they refuse to even open up production lines here. Might want to look around, as what the NLRB is doing, is a major reason why that companies are moving away due to the over reaching demand and power that the unions possess.

In the first place, it is readily possible to undergo protectionist measures without a "trade war" - the inverse notion arises in the first place from the pro-free trade discourse developed by Washington. It is of no true consequence: American jobs are already under threat, its economy already damaged. (A concern over exports? What? You have a production trade deficit.) Reform towards an alternate route, rather than increased severity along the current path, is the immediately obvious way to avoid a downward spiral. At present, you have to compete downwards towards the most base conditions in order to meet levels of profitability. Weak domestic trade policy ensures that "jobs" (in the form of capital flight) can simply leave when corporations can realize greater profit elsewhere. You have missed this entire aspect of the policy process: I did not argue that the NRLB has no effect, but rather that its effects only matter under the current paradigm, and are trivial compared to its formative period.

What is the historical source of this sort of trade policy? Binding treaties and FTA which were unsuccessfully opposed by labour itself. The threat to domestic workers - to union members - found in such policies makes the need for labour protest obvious. Successful opposition by organized labour has been made in other countries, but due to the weakness of union position in America, this was not the outcome. Companies do move away because of the residual power of unions (as they are averse to losing profit whenever possible) - this is because of the failure to stop decades of policy which allow capital to escape at its whim. This subsequently undermines the entire capital-labour bargaining process (weakening labour further). It does not have to be this way - if you restrain capital flight, union power does not 'scare off' employers, as they are forced to negotiate domestically. If we reject the assumption of illegitimacy in collective bargaining, this negotiation then allows beneficial outcomes for the labourers.

It's a two-stage process. Unions aren't job-exporters; they increase labour expenses thus decreasing competitiveness, but at the same time failed to successfully oppose the measures which allow for redirection of the labour process outside the domestic sphere. The consequent policy recommendation then should not be to destroy unions to restore competitiveness: this is an abominable loss for the material conditions of the working class in America. Instead, policies bolstering domestic production must reappear alongside the collective negotiation process which will restore and ensure the decent chance at employment and life that labour deserves.

[Roy Karrde]

Last night, Newt Gingrich boasted that he balanced the budget four times when he was speaker.

Really, Mr. Speaker? Here's the truth:

The National Debt went up nearly $1 trillion while Newt Gingrich was Speaker

•In 1994, the year before Gingrich become Speaker the National Debt was $4.693 trillion

•In 1995, the year he become Speaker the debt was $4.974 trillion

•In 1996 the debt was $5.225 trillion

•In 1997 the debt was $5.413 trillion

•In 1998-- the last year of his speakership-- the debt was $5.526 trillion

Newt Gingrich is a filthy liar. Vote for Obama in 2012.

Last time I checked the Democratic Party's main talking point was that Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, and then squandered it away. That is something that has been said by Clinton, by members of Congress, even by this own President. So if Gingrich is a liar, than he is in the same boat as much of the Democratic leadership.

In the first place, it is readily possible to undergo protectionist measures without a "trade war" - the inverse notion arises in the first place from the pro-free trade discourse developed by Washington. It is of no true consequence: American jobs are already under threat, its economy already damaged. (A concern over exports? What? You have a production trade deficit.) Reform towards an alternate route, rather than increased severity along the current path, is the immediately obvious way to avoid a downward spiral. At present, you have to compete downwards towards the most base conditions in order to meet levels of profitability. Weak domestic trade policy ensures that "jobs" (in the form of capital flight) can simply leave when corporations can realize greater profit elsewhere. You have missed this entire aspect of the policy process: I did not argue that the NRLB has no effect, but rather that its effects only matter under the current paradigm, and are trivial compared to its formative period.

What is the historical source of this sort of trade policy? Binding treaties and FTA which were unsuccessfully opposed by labour itself. The threat to domestic workers - to union members - found in such policies makes the need for labour protest obvious. Successful opposition by organized labour has been made in other countries, but due to the weakness of union position in America, this was not the outcome. Companies do move away because of the residual power of unions (as they are averse to losing profit whenever possible) - this is because of the failure to stop decades of policy which allow capital to escape at its whim. This subsequently undermines the entire capital-labour bargaining process (weakening labour further). It does not have to be this way - if you restrain capital flight, union power does not 'scare off' employers, as they are forced to negotiate domestically. If we reject the assumption of illegitimacy in collective bargaining, this negotiation then allows beneficial outcomes for the labourers.

It's a two-stage process. Unions aren't job-exporters; they increase labour expenses thus decreasing competitiveness, but at the same time failed to successfully oppose the measures which allow for redirection of the labour process outside the domestic sphere. The consequent policy recommendation then should not be to destroy unions to restore competitiveness: this is an abominable loss for the material conditions of the working class in America. Instead, policies bolstering domestic production must reappear alongside the collective negotiation process which will restore and ensure the decent chance at employment and life that labour deserves.

So far I have not seen one actual policy idea from you, not one fact, just a bunch of empty rhetoric, so if you believe you can solve the unemployment crisis for the middle class, then please do so.

However I do warn you, if you engage in the falsehood that unionization will do it, I will show that as false just as I proved that Unions have substantial policy power in Washignton.

The fact is that Unions ARE job killers, this is not a opinion but a well documented fact, I give you Obama's own economic adviser Larry Summers as proof of it.

Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment. Between 1970 and 1985, for example, a state with a 20 percent unionization rate, approximately the average for the fifty states and the District of Columbia, experienced an unemployment rate that was 1.2 percentage points higher than that of a hypothetical state that had no unions. To put this in perspective, 1.2 percentage points is about 60 percent of the increase in normal unemployment between 1970 and 1985.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...e-unemployment

The fact is Unions create a 1.2 percentage point difference in unemployment, as shown by Obama's Adviser and the director of the National Economic Council

Edit: And lets also not forget the negative effects unionization has over companies as shown by Princeton and UC Berkley

New unionization is associated with a reduction in a company’s market value totaling approximately $40,500 per worker eligible to vote.

The negative effects of unionization on the equity value of firms appears fairly stable over time.

An examination of the balance sheets and income statements of both sets of companies reveals that union wins are associated with relatively lower growth.

http://theohiolaborlawyers.wordpress...-unemployment/

[Dark Sage]

Roy, Gingrich clearly said that he balanced the budget four times when he was speaker. Given the data I presented, it was clear that he told a boldfaced lie. He did not balance it even once.

No Democrat has told such blatant lies than this man. You may say that all politicians are liars and hypocrites, but none currently in office are more obvious than he is.

Need I remind you that he was leading the fight to impreach President Clinton for the Monica Lewinski scandal even though he had committed adultery himself? Gingrich said that Fidel Castro won't be going to Heaven, and I truly believe that Gingrich doesn't stand much of a chance either. He is a despicable human being.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, Gingrich clearly said that he balanced the budget four times when he was speaker. Given the data I presented, it was clear that he told a boldfaced lie. He did not balance it even once.

No Democrat has told such blatant lies than this man. You may say that all politicians are liars and hypocrites, but none currently in office are more obvious than he is.

Again you are neglecting what I am saying, Democrats use those balanced budgets to claim that Clinton left office with a surplus to hand off to Bush. It isn't just one side claiming the balanced budgets. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot claim that Gingrich is lying for those balanced budgets, but then ignore the Democrats that have used the surplus from those balanced budgets to tout Clinton and ridicule Bush.

Need I remind you that he was leading the fight to impreach President Clinton for the Monica Lewinski scandal even though he had committed adultery himself? Gingrich said that Fidel Castro won't be going to Heaven, and I truly believe that Gingrich doesn't stand much of a chance either. He is a despicable human being.

Might I remind you that Clinton was not being impeached for adultery, but for lying to a grand jury. Those are two wildly different things, one is worthy of impeachment, the other isn't.

[kurai]

So far I have not seen one actual policy idea from you, not one fact, just a bunch of empty rhetoric, so if you believe you can solve the unemployment crisis for the middle class, then please do so.

However I do warn you, if you engage in the falsehood that unionization will do it, I will show that as false just as I proved that Unions have substantial policy power in Washignton.

The fact is that Unions ARE job killers, this is not a opinion but a well documented fact, I give you Obama's own economic adviser Larry Summers as proof of it.

Hello! I issued a fairly clear two-part policy prescription. But I am personally responsible for solving a crisis, of course. Shall I also undertake the teaching of basic concepts of international political economy? Yes, you need some measure of protectionism when competing with production in areas with an absolute advantage in labour costs. If you seek to restore American manufacturing: tax capital flows, claw back free trade agreements, directly encourage young industries - ensure a domestic reconstruction before competing globally. These aren't ideas I am freshly introducing here, but as you seem willing to dismiss any such notions out of hand, their previous mention is somehow converted into "empty rhetoric". Yet it is hard to deny that you would need a developmental process in order to develop. As above, consider Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Peter Evans, 1995). With your production deficit, you have so much room to grow. Only the hegemony of neoliberal discourse stops you from doing so.

It is common-sensical to attribute the failure for this to occur through non-interventionist policy to the fact that American cultural standards of living are higher than elsewhere. Capital will so rarely voluntarily choose to lose profit in favor of local production. Consequently, I did not say that unions have no negative effect on global competitiveness. I actually said the exact opposite must be the case under current economic conditions (the evidence you provide is not to the contrary, "High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy"). The issue is whether you ought to be continuing to compete outwards and downwards - this will have brutal material consequences for the "middle class" (it will no longer be able to exist).

You have not proven that "unions have substantial policy power in Washington" -- on the contrary, you have provided examples which assume that the status quo is one of grave injustice and the height of labour's power. Yet labour did not have the capacity to stop the most harmful influx of anti-manufacturing policy developments (in the form of FTA and deregulation). It was this development, rather than any contemporary offence you perceive, which has allowed for a situation which destroys the legitimacy for collective bargaining. Capital can simply leave, and it has done so. This was the end of labour! Modern events are a dying gasp.

But what if you were to grant the rebirth of collective bargaining alongside a mandate for domestic growth? As I have outlined all along: not only jobs, but good jobs. Consider that the golden age of manufacturing coincides with the peak of union membership and predates the notion of outsourcing secondary industry. Both capital and labour appreciated this arrangement. But recall from your own citation, "those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment". Indeed: newly opened to global competition, free trade policies result in the unemployment of formerly unionized labour (now comparatively inefficient).

With regard to firm equity and market valuation, it should be plainly obvious that this is a consequence of market reaction to the increased "competitiveness" (ie. profitability) of those who adhere most strongly to corporate outsourcing, anti-union enforcement, etcetera. As above, profitability declines when labour demands increase. Beyond moral judgements, this is a valueless state when there is no escape for capital into the foreign lands of no-regulation and no-bargaining-power-for-labour. Such evidence thus goes nowhere.

(Of course, the entire premise I have been arguing with has been based on a reactionary return, as was the concept on arrival. It is also possible (or probable) that America has moved beyond an industrial economy and can not go back. This requires an entirely different set of policy recommendations.)

[Roy Karrde]

I decided to skip a long reply to boil this down, this entire argument started about lowering unemployment for the middle class. So far your two ideas do not do that, but in turn hurt the middle class. Unionization has negative consequences in particular it raises unemployment. That automatically invalidates your point as it goes against the nature of the argument. Second to restore American manufacturing you would have to engage in severe protectionist policies against countries like China and India. To offset the influx of cheap goods, that in and of itself would give rise to the same severe protectionist policies against us. This would hurt the middle class by dramatically raising the cost of many of the goods we use in our everyday lives. This in turn would allow less money being spent in different areas of the market as the middle class trims back, which in turn would result in a loss of jobs. And that does not even get into the jobs loss from the drop in exports to China and India. Again like your first idea, it would create a net rise in unemployment and thus invalidates your argument.

Provide ideas to actually drop unemployment and we can talk.

Edit: I would also suggest reading this article.

Man often errs through selfishness. Economic restrictions always benefit some people at the expense of others, and inflict net losses on society. Protectionists do not look beyond the range of direct involvement and dealing. American steel workers may see only their own wages and benefits which trade restrictions are meant to protect. They point at the market of goods and services catering to the steel industry in general and to steel workers in particular, and warn of dire consequences if these markets be permitted to decline. They completely ignore all other consequences and ramifications of restrictions, and refuse to admit that any favor bestowed on the steel industry is a disfavor to all others. Domestic trade is substituted for foreign trade, and domestic steel for foreign steel. The quantity of steel offered in exchange for other goods is reduced, which makes economic society universally poorer. The sellers of food, clothing, housing, education, and the like receive less steel in exchange for their goods and services. They would have been better off if they had been permitted to trade with foreign steel makers.

....

Unemployment is a cost and wage phenomenon; foreign trade is exchange by individuals separated by political boundaries. The former is a manifestation of the law of price, which rests on the valuations by all members of society; the latter pertains to the scope of the division of labor which man is willing to practice. This scope does affect goods prices, including the price of labor. Improvements in the division of labor generally raise labor productivity and wage rates; deterioration reduces them. When government imposes trade restrictions it reduces the marginal productivity of labor and thereby lowers wage rates. If, in this situation, workers should refuse to suffer wage cuts, they are inviting mass unemployment. When seen in this light, trade barriers are effective instruments for causing unemployment.

In many respects production restrictions and trade barriers are like natural obstacles that thwart human effort and impair man’s productivity. They both may increase the demand for specific labor. Destruction of housing by war, flood, earthquake or fire increases the demand for housing material and construction labor. But it also reduces the demand for a myriad of other goods which the destruction victims now must forgo. Similarly, import restrictions on steel may boost the demand for domestic steel, but they also reduce the demand for other goods which the restriction victims, that is, consumers must forgo. Steel producers and their workers may benefit from the new barriers; but the producers and workers in all other industries are likely to suffer losses.

....

In a profound study, M. Kreinin recently demonstrated that labor compensation in the American automobile industry, in 1982, amounted to some 165 percent of that in all man ufactures. To become competitive with Japanese car makers, he concluded, United Auto Workers’ compensation would have to fall by 24 percent, which would leave their compensation still 25 percent above the U.S. manufacturing average. Similarly, in iron and steel production workers’ wages and benefits amount to 189 percent of those in all manufactures. To restore competitiveness with Japan they would have to fall by 39 percent, which would leave their compensation still 15 percent above the U.S. manufacturing average.[5] But no such solution to the chronic unemployment in the steel and auto industries is under consideration. Instead, their spokesmen are clamoring ever louder for protection from “unfair” foreign competition.

Trade barriers destroy more jobs than they create. And yet, they have retained their popularity because most workers are convinced that they safeguard wage rates from the competition of low- cost labor. Without trade barriers, many Americans believe, foreign products made by cheap labor would flood the markets and force American labor to suffer substantial wage cuts or face unemployment. Free trade is said to be advantageous only between countries that have similar wage rates and similar standards of living, but thought to be harmful to people with high wages trading with people earning less. Americans and Canadians can trade with each other because they are similar in income and living conditions; but they must not trade with Mexicans who engage in unfair pauper-labor competition and cause U.S. living conditions to fall.

There are few arguments in favor of protection that are more popular and yet so specious and fallacious. When carried to its logical conclusion the wage-rate argument bars all trade across political boundaries as no two countries are identical in labor productivity and income. U.S. wage rates are generally higher than Canadian rates, which would call for American government protection from low-cost labor competition in Canada. Labor conditions may differ from state to state, yea, from community to community. Wage rates in New York state are generally higher than in Maine and Mississippi, which would call for government intervention in favor of labor in New York.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/colu...-unemployment/

[kurai]

let us leave aside that you repeatedly redirect the subject away from the material well-being of the middle class towards employment alone and thus divorce the notion of job quality from the discussion entirely (and incidentally negate any possible labour benefit from collective arrangements)

from the evidence at-hand, ask yourself this:

have relative (manufacturing) wage rates fallen over time given the economic developments out of 1985?
has sectoral employment been on the decline in the same period?

such answers address the real conditions of labour. do you really think it is reasonable to blame unionization for two separate and inversely-related concepts when their purpose is to fight for the obverse?

what of the conclusions of the statement that "[w]hen government imposes trade restrictions it reduces the marginal productivity of labor and thereby lowers wage rates. If, in this situation, workers should refuse to suffer wage cuts, they are inviting mass unemployment"? shall we devote our proposal solely towards maximizing employment by (freely) minimizing wage rates in an effort to compete globally without "radical interventionism"? how grand! did you just assume that this article was right or did you consider bringing it to its logical conclusion?

as mentioned all along, such policy does not provide the good job that the american labourer desires and deserves.

[Roy Karrde]

Again so far you seem to provide no idea for actually dealing with unemployment, instead you seem to be under the faulty belief of creating two classes, the "haves" and "have nots", with the "haves" getting the good job and the "have nots" being forced to live in a market with high unemployment and increasingly high cost of goods due to protectionist policies.

I will not ask again, provide a way to actually deal with Unemployment, as was the basis of this discussion, or move on.

[kurai]

I congratulate you on your newfound creation of a society of have-nots without end. Such is the consequence of caring about unemployment without any concern for material conditions.

Protected domestic growth? Certainly, this would never lead to domestic employment as has happened repeatedly throughout history as a consequence of interventionist industrialization. Instead, you have to generate a false dichotomy between two domestic groups in order to sustain your argument against unionization (the only actually created differentiation is between the consequences of your recommended downward spiral and the past [or future?] conditions of American manufacturing). Consider addressing historical-economic reality. You need both sides of the coin; capital and labour. You undermine the other by focusing only on the one, which is just unworkable (not to mention unrealistic).

[Roy Karrde]

I congratulate you on your newfound creation of a society of have-nots without end. Such is the consequence of caring about unemployment without any concern for material conditions.

Pot/Kettle man, you're idea would create a massive rise in the cost of goods as Americans would not only lose a chance to buy cheap goods, but the cost of resources to build goods in America would also skyrocket, especially in electronics. In essence you ignore the fact that a idiotic protectionist policy you are pursuing would cost the Middle Class at home.

Protected domestic growth? Certainly, this would never lead to domestic employment as has happened repeatedly throughout history as a consequence of interventionist industrialization. Instead, you have to generate a false dichotomy between two domestic groups in order to sustain your argument against unionization (the only created differentiation is between your recommended downward spiral and the past conditions of American manufacturing). Consider addressing historical-economic reality. You need both sides of the coin; capital and labour. You undermine the other by focusing only on the one, which is just infeasible.

I am also factoring in the idiocy of a hard line protectionist policy needed to revitalize the manufacturing market. This would including needing to place harsh penalties on goods imported from China and India. Or have you neglected that little fact? Here is another fact you have neglected, to make up for this we would have to buy domestically, which is great until you realize that the added unionization you want would add to increased cost of products and thus make it much harder for those to live. Oh and how can we not forget the fact that China is one of the biggest exporter of some of the Rare Earth Metals that we use in electronics? So being able to manufacture electronics would be out as China would be looking to punish us for shutting out their exports.

Of course you will ignore this, as you will ignore the fact you have not produced one viable option to lower unemployment. The false reality you live in is quite remarkable. I have also asked you numerous times for you to produce a realistic way to bring down unemployment as was the basis of the debate, as you have refused then we have nothing more to discuss.

[kurai]

Cheap goods! Merely at the cost of domestic employment. A sacrifice well worth it.

Adjust downwards, labourers. It's structural adjustment time. We will, of course, need to remove all wage controls in order to allow for competitiveness, but being paid at rates commensurate with our generous neighbours will be no real sacrifice. At least you have a job!

There is no escape from the trappings of the globalized free market. This is the way it has to be -- you want your mass-produced electronics at the lowest possible price, after all.

I don't recall advocating total trade isolationism.

Perhaps your argument would have some merit in that instance. Yet we find that it is so unreasonable that America attempt the suggestion of "tax[ing] capital flows, claw[ing] back free trade agreements, directly encourage young industries"... could it be that short-term interventionism is appropriate for addressing a crisis, allowing for gradual shifts and developments? Could it be that this is simply a practical example of historical economic policy being adapted to present conditions?

The neoliberal solution is not the only solution to international political economy. It did not exist during the greatest periods of industrialization, and there is no reason to expect it will somehow reverse itself and act in the exact opposite fashion in the future. If America is sliding downwards, reform is needed to escape. A head-first leap will do no good.

[Dark Sage]

I have a question directed at Roy. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are both Republicans, right?

Their venemous attacks against each other, which have only gotten worse, make them seem about as close as the Hatfields and the McCoys.

How does the GOP plan to successfully defeat Obama if they keep fighting each other like this? Answer me that? Or will Gingrich do a complete 180 when Romney wins the nomination, say "I'm sorry", and decide to endorse him? It wouldn't surprise me given his hypocritical nature.

[Roy Karrde]

I have a question directed at Roy. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are both Republicans, right?

Their venemous attacks against each other, which have only gotten worse, make them seem about as close as the Hatfields and the McCoys.

How does the GOP plan to successfully defeat Obama if they keep fighting each other like this? Answer me that? Or will Gingrich do a complete 180 when Romney wins the nomination, say "I'm sorry", and decide to endorse him? It wouldn't surprise me given his hypocritical nature.

Because like every single primary, when the dust settles, everyone gets together at the convention, holds hands, and unites. I mean did you forget just 4 years ago, we saw a even nastier campaign with Hillary versus Obama, in which the fight continued through April and the Hillary fans looked as if they were ready to bolt for the GOP candidate? Yeah that lasted all the way until Hillary spoke at the convention.

Edit: It also helps to have a great villain to unite against, and Obama being possibly the most polarizing President of all time really helps that out.