Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 21st, 2009 #21
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
Actually, no economy can run without speculation. Some Soviet economists came to the 'Kwa in the sixties, saying that they could not allocate (ration) crops over the year, and that they wanted to know how we did it.

And the answer is- futures markets.
Yes.

The illusion of knowledge, as someone called it, if I remember correctly, is especially popular. Generally speaking, the dumber the man, the more certain he is that a thing can be done easily.
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Asian Exclusion Acts" that were passed in the U.S. and Canada in the early 20th Century were enacted under pressure from socialist groups and parties, who were concerned that letting Asians in would make it impossible for white workers to earn decent living wages. It was the capitalists (for lack of a better word) who were bringing the Asians here for cheap labor.

Not that different to the situation today with Mexicans being brought in for cheap labor (though with "free trade," companies can just move their operations offshore and don't have to bother bringing people in anymore).
There will always be those will put money ahead of their race. But if those who put their race first are in power, and if the penalties are severe enough, the minority of business owners willing to sell out its community will constrain its activity. What I guess most here or many here don't understand is that there are iron laws of economics/business like anything else. You simply cannot stay in business once a globalized environment has been created or allowed by the powers that be. Either you adjust or die. Then we have guys pointing to businesses following, rather than driving, the globalization as the main cause of the problem. It is not so. The cause of the problem was jews who wanted to supplant the white population with coloreds. They took full power in the sixties and promptly opened the borders, but not just that, remade the entire social and legal environment, pushing globalization and diversity. Corporate America is forced to go along with that, whether it likes it is or not. I mean that literally and legally.

As for pre-1900 stuff, remember that there were very few people in the U.S. There was great desire for labor of any kind, low cost or otherwise. But yes, at that time, there was still enough White sentiment to force certain employers to put their country ahead of their profits. My understanding is those White forces were led by Irish, and those Irish themselves were newcomers to the US, most of them.

Business will adapt itself to whatever rules the rulers set down. What makes it possible, nay, inevitable that business take a huge hand in politics is precisely the expansion of government until it takes up 50% of the economy and there is no way for business not to be involved with it. That's when the lobbies start up and you get the revolving door.
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #23
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

Chinese workers were needed on this GOVERNMENT project:

"The Pony Express from 1860 to 1861 was to prove that the Central Nevada Route across Nevada and Utah and the sections of the Oregon Trail across Wyoming and Nebraska was viable during the winter. With the American Civil War raging and a secessionist movement in California gaining steam, the apparent need for the railroad became more urgent.

In 1861 Curtis again introduced a bill to establish the railroad, but it did not pass. After the secession of the southern states, the House of Representatives on May 6, 1862, and the Senate on June 20 finally approved it. Lincoln signed it into law on July 1. The act established the two main lines -- the Central Pacific from the west and the Union Pacific from the mid-west. Other rail lines were encouraged to build feeder lines.

Each was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Each railroad was subsidized $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. To allow the railroads to raise additional money Congress provided additional assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants of federal lands. They were granted 400-foot right-of-ways plus ten square miles of land (ten sections) adjacent to the track for every mile of track built. To avoid a railroad monopoly on good land, the land was not given away in a continuous swath but in a "checkerboard" pattern leaving Federal land in between that could be purchased from the government. The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold bonds based on the value of the lands, sold the land to settlers, used the money to build their railroads, and contributed to a rapid settlement of the West. [6] The race was on to see which railroad company could build the longest section of track and receive the most land and subsidy
."

First_Transcontinental_Railroad First_Transcontinental_Railroad
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #24
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
You simply cannot stay in business once a globalized environment has been created or allowed by the powers that be. Either you adjust or die.
I recognize that some businessmen are good, ethical people, while others are amoral scumbags. Some businessmen pushed for "free trade," while others avoided going offshore as long as they could. I guess what differentiates me from the typical modern leftist is that I don't consider businessmen to be inherently evil, and I don't subscribe to this dichotomy of "government = good" and "private sector = evil." There was nothing severely wrong that I can see with American-style capitalism until the 60's, when everything started being pushed offshore.

I'm not a big supporter of socialism or of government regulation or intervention in the markets (though explaining that to people, especially women, is an uphill struggle which often seems hopeless -- try explaining to a Frenchman, a Briton, or a Canadian why their "free" healthcare system is bad and see how far you get), but I do think that socialism (or more accurately, the labor movement) at one time may have been a necessary counterweight to "corporate" power. If it weren't for the labor movement, wouldn't we still have 7-year-olds working 14 hour shifts in factories under deplorable conditions (kinda like in the Third World today)?

Much of this is a moot point now, though, since eventually it's going to be cheaper and yield higher quality to build everything using computerized robots than to employ humans, even at slave wages. Once that happens, the world's going to have an awful lot of "useless eaters" on its hands.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #25
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Here are two hypothetical scenarios that I'd be curious in hearing a response to from those who think government has no business regulating or interfering in anything:

1. A factory is dumping highly toxic chemical by-products into a nearby river, polluting it and harming the wildlife. The factory is legally allowed to do this because the government doesn't have the authority to interfere in its affairs. A citizen's group mounts a boycott of the factory's products, and though the boycott has an impact, there are still too many people buying the products to persuade the factory to stop doing this.

2. Some greedy fishermen, more interested in short-term profit than in the long-term viability of their trade, decide to fish until certain fish stocks are completely depleted.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #26
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

"try explaining to a Frenchman, a Briton, or a Canadian why their "free" healthcare system is bad and see how far you get)"

>>"Six per cent of people in a large survey in England said they had to treat their own dental problems themselves, because they could not get professional treatment - this included pulling out their own teeth."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85552.php

"So the people have not yet said: socialized medicine is obviously a political program, not a health program, that was imposed on Canadians by fiscal bribery of the provinces and legal trickery (health care is constitutionally off-limits to the feds).
Nor have they said: the consequent waiting lists for services, the many thousands tripping to the U.S. for care that isn't available here, the closing of whole hospital wings despite high demand, the selective care now in place (we'll treat young, not old, this illness, but not that), the "delisting" of formerly covered services - all this results in a system which is profoundly immoral because it converts the ethic of direct Hippocratic medicine (by which formerly free physicians would do their utmost to heal all patients) into a veterinary ethic by which the quality and amount of care and resources available is now controlled by a master. A political master. In a crunch, we end up with the medical freedom of animals."

http://www.williamgairdner.com/the-f...cialized-medi/

"If it weren't for the labor movement, wouldn't we still have 7-year-olds working 14 hour shifts in factories under deplorable conditions (kinda like in the Third World today)?"

No.
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #27
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

1. A factory is dumping highly toxic chemical by-products into a nearby river, polluting it and harming the wildlife. The factory is legally allowed to do this because the government doesn't have the authority to interfere in its affairs. A citizen's group mounts a boycott of the factory's products, and though the boycott has an impact, there are still too many people buying the products to persuade the factory to stop doing this.

2. Some greedy fishermen, more interested in short-term profit than in the long-term viability of their trade, decide to fish until certain fish stocks are completely depleted.

This is tragedy-of-the-commons. Who owns the river?
Dumping would be viewed as a rights violation of the owner. The government in the 19th century allowed this- they were wrong.

Fishing rights should sold to highest bidder. The fishing areas would be viewed as a capital asset. If all the fish are gone, the asset value goes to zero, giving incentive not to over-fish.

Lots and lots of information is available on these matters. Garrett Hardin is the father of tragedy of the commons idea.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/..._who_pays.html
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #28
Curious
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
October 21-24, 2009
Salamanca, Spain

Supporters Summit 2009 and Awarding of Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in Liberty

"One of the great discoveries of the 20th century concerns the origins of economic science in the late middle ages in Spain and Italy. Long before Adam Smith wrote, many scholastics from the 14th through the 17th centuries were writing systematic economic theory.

No spot on the planet was as fruitful as the School of Salamanca in Spain. Here was the world center of economic research. The writings by the intellectuals gathered here explained price, value, money and its function, saving, entrepreneurship, inflation, contract and exchange, and so much more - and they closely engaged the modern world that was being born at that time, providing at theory and a rationale for the rise of prosperity.

As Murray Rothbard demonstrated in his tremendous treatise on the history of thought, these thinkers were the predecessors to modern Austrian School theory.

What's more, the late scholastics of the School of Salamanca agreed on the damage that government intervention did in the course of economic affairs. They saw the blessings of liberty as an extension of the blessings of God. Therefore, there is a sense in which Salamanca is also the origin of modern libertarian theory."

http://mises.org/events/118
Those scholastics didn't understand that the very notion of Economic Laws is at odds with Free Will. Maybe those scholastics were Marranos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The Nazis were wrong on speculation. Speculation is precisely what you need to develop minds sharp enough to defeat the jews. Speculation makes sharp minds because they must be completely attuned to reality, whereas the religious mindset weakens minds because it keeps them floating in fantasy.
There is no reason to make a principled distinction between speculation and other economic activities. Alex Linder is right in that, and NS wrong.
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #29
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
"try explaining to a Frenchman, a Briton, or a Canadian why their "free" healthcare system is bad and see how far you get)"

>>"Six per cent of people in a large survey in England said they had to treat their own dental problems themselves, because they could not get professional treatment - this included pulling out their own teeth."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85552.php

"So the people have not yet said: socialized medicine is obviously a political program, not a health program, that was imposed on Canadians by fiscal bribery of the provinces and legal trickery (health care is constitutionally off-limits to the feds).
Nor have they said: the consequent waiting lists for services, the many thousands tripping to the U.S. for care that isn't available here, the closing of whole hospital wings despite high demand, the selective care now in place (we'll treat young, not old, this illness, but not that), the "delisting" of formerly covered services - all this results in a system which is profoundly immoral because it converts the ethic of direct Hippocratic medicine (by which formerly free physicians would do their utmost to heal all patients) into a veterinary ethic by which the quality and amount of care and resources available is now controlled by a master. A political master. In a crunch, we end up with the medical freedom of animals."

http://www.williamgairdner.com/the-f...cialized-medi/
Rick: My point was that government health care programs have tremendous popular support, not that they are the best way of providing health care. That is a political reality, whether you like it or not. Seriously, try talking to some Canadians, especially the roughly 50% of the population that don't have penises between their legs. Most of them would sooner die than give up these programs. If anything, European countries are worse in this regard.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #30
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
Fishing rights should sold to highest bidder.
Sold to the highest bidder by whom?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #31
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
This is tragedy-of-the-commons. Who owns the river?
That doesn't really answer my question. If your answer is that government shouldn't allow this sort of thing to go on, then you have right there admitted that in some cases government should interfere in how people conduct business.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #32
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
Quote:
"If it weren't for the labor movement, wouldn't we still have 7-year-olds working 14 hour shifts in factories under deplorable conditions (kinda like in the Third World today)?"
No.
LOL. Care to be more specific? What brought an end to child labor practices in the West if not pressure from the left (the old-school left, not the Cultural Marxism that passes for leftism these days)?

Alex talks a lot about distinguishing WN from conservatism, and yet I'm finding his (and your) stance on economics almost indistinguishable from conservatism/libertarianism.

Just to be clear, I consider myself to be neither a conservative nor a leftist on economic matters; I am a nationalist. I think economic policies should be subjugated to the national interest (and my brand of nationalism, obviously, takes race into account and is not just the empty wordism of the patriotards). That should be the guiding principle behind everything.

I'd also like to throw out the following ideas:

1. That capitalism and a free market are not necessarily the same thing.

2. That what we have now is to a large extent what one could call monopoly capitalism, and is not a free market at all (I acknowledge that Alex already touched on this by mentioning the "revolving door"; what most leftists don't get is that Big Business wants government regulation, at least when it works in its favor).
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #33
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

BTW, I don't see why we're even having this debate. Alex's vision, if I understand it correctly, is to have a very limited central government, and let communities govern themselves however they see fit.

That way, if a community wants to try an Adam Smith economy, it is free to do so. If it wants high taxes, a large, intrusive government bureaucracy, and lots of public services, it is also free to do so. To each his own.

The important questions, then, are how much power a central government should have, and what its areas of authority should be. Alex mentioned defense. Is there anything else?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #34
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default Economic Nationalism

The Global Financial Crisis and the Vindication of Economic Nationalism

There was also a really good article published at the Occidental Observer sometime last year which set forth economic nationalist principles for dealing with the American car industry, but I haven't been able to find it.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #35
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
BTW, I don't see why we're even having this debate. Alex's vision, if I understand it correctly, is to have a very limited central government, and let communities govern themselves however they see fit.

That way, if a community wants to try an Adam Smith economy, it is free to do so. If it wants high taxes, a large, intrusive government bureaucracy, and lots of public services, it is also free to do so. To each his own.

The important questions, then, are how much power a central government should have, and what its areas of authority should be. Alex mentioned defense. Is there anything else?
alex doesn't even think government should be funding science. TLibertardB
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #36
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Could someone here explain to me what would be the advantage of privatizing a local fire department or water works? I don't know if Alex or Rick go as far as advocating that, but Murray Rothbard certainly did.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #37
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

"Those scholastics didn't understand that the very notion of Economic Laws is at odds with Free Will."

You means economic laws are a form of determinism?

>>In Defense of Child Labor>>

"Just the other day, hard-eyed federal cops descended on young lawbreakers all across America. Their crime wasn't drugs or gang warfare or even shoplifting. It was work.

Given the number of bums infesting our cities, one might assume a Republican administration would not attack work. One would be wrong.

Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole – wife of Senator Bob (R-IRS) – is a pal of big labor, an institution which really ought to be called big anti-labor. Unions use violence and government- granted privileges to get more money for less work. As part of this effort, they seek to outlaw the competition – newer people who might work harder or for market wages.

At the behest of Mrs. Dole and the unions, President Bush and Congress raised the minimum wage. This abolished entry-level jobs suitable for kids ill-educated in the government schools. Now Mrs. Dole, with White House support, is usurping parental rights with a union-inspired attack on "child labor." Like the minimum wage increase, it does great harm.

After her Labor police investigated and fined a legion of businesses in Operation Child Watch, Mrs. Dole said: "I want to deliver a clear message to employers, parents, and youth. The cop is on the beat."

Some cop. These 14 and 15-year-old kids hold part-time jobs because they need the money, but it's illegal for them to work more than three hours a day, later than 7:00 pm, or more than 18 hours a week. Thus if a teenage busboy works three and a half hours, or until 7:15prn, he's guilty, and his boss can be fined $100,000 and sentenced to six months in prison.

What's wrong with hard work? And why should the federal government, not exactly an expert in hard work, stick its nose in? The Constitution doesn't appoint Mrs. Dole as Big Mother.

Can a youngster work too many hours? Sure, just as he can play too many hours. But in a free and decent society, decisions about these matters are for parents, not bureaucrats. Mrs. Dole not only violates the free market, she usurps the authority of fathers and mothers.

How dare she close off these kids' opportunities? A teenager's job is not only gainful, it's a school for life. And it is the most important school many kids attend. The government wants to kick them out.

This is made easier by what Ludwig von Mises identified as the "anti-capitalistic mentality" of politicians and intellectuals, and the long history of socialist propaganda on this subject.

Youth labor is the "most widely misrepresented aspect of the history of capitalism," says Robert Hessen of the Hoover Institution.

We're told that capitalism put young people to work in the English factories of the 1700s and 1800s that were little better than concentration camps. As usual, the left has got it exactly backwards.

In 1697, before the Industrial Revolution, John Locke urged families to put their children to work at age three. Otherwise, they would have only "bread and water, and that very scantily too." And many would not have even that.

By 1830, the life expectancy of children had vastly increased, thanks to the most explosive growth in living standards in history. Before capitalism, "these children were destitute," said Mises. "Their only refuge was the factory," which "saved them from death by starvation."

The work was hard, as life was hard, but it was not abusive. The real maltreatment took place in the English welfare system. The government placed orphaned and deserted children in horrendous establishments.

When youth factory work was restricted by an unholy combination of upper-class bleeding hearts and socialists, it was the kids who suffered. Since they had to live, and since they would do anything to avoid the social workers, the youngsters were forced to look for usually lower-paying and more dangerous work in the countryside. Many ended up, says Mises, "vagabonds, beggars, tramps, robbers, and prostitutes."

Youth labor was not abolished by Parliament, says Hessen, any more than it could be legislatively eliminated today in Bangladesh or Ghana. Only when "the income of parents became sufficient to support them" did it cease. The "emancipators and benefactors for these children" were "manufacturers and financiers," not politicians.

Twice during the Progressive Era (the regressive era that gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and World War I), Congress tried to restrict youth work, but both times it was stymied by a Supreme Court that followed the Constitution.

Liberals and unions proposed a constitutional amendment to ban child labor; but it too failed. Only Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which subverted the Supreme Court and exalted unions, could have enacted the union-inspired Walsh-Healey Act of 1936, ordering government contractors to fire young people, cut working hours, and pay above-market union wages. The so-called Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 extended these principles to the whole economy, and gave us the first minimum wage.

Northeastern Congressmen saw the legislation as a way to attack the lower-cost, non-union Southern states. A conservative Republican-Southern Democrat alliance tried to stop the laws, but unfortunately to no avail. Anti-market legislation is always harmful, but these laws threw people out of work during the Great Depression.

The power of Labor unions has faded since those dark days, and few people (outside of university economics departments) believe in Marxist exploitation theories anymore, but we are still saddled with anti-work laws that stunt young people's lives.

Instead of harassing small businesses, I have a better idea. Let's raid the Department of Labor and toss the slothocracy out on the street. Maybe they can get some real jobs in fast-food restaurants. . . as long as they're willing to compete with America's young people newly enfranchised by the repeal of all child-labor laws."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/05-90.html

Who do they buy the fishing rights from? I knew you would ask. I actually paced the floor last night, thinking on this.
The owner of a fishing area would want to protect it.

Here is a ton of information about fishing rights:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

". . .That what we have now is to a large extent what one could call monopoly capitalism. . ." We have the corporate state, public/private partnerships, same as advocated by Mussolini. It is fascism. All monopolies are from the state (government). Big business absolutely hates laissez-faire.
The new deal didn't start socialist- the first order of business was the Swope plan, to cartelize business. Named after GE CEO Gerald Swope:

(I'll put the whole thing here. Long, but very important as to how we got here.)

>>Appendix A The Swope Plan

1. All industrial and commercial companies (including subsidiaries) with 50 or more employees, and doing an interstate business, may form a trade association which shall be under the supervision of a federal body referred to later.

2. These trade associations may outline trade practices, business ethics, methods of standard accounting and cost practice, standard forms of balance sheet and earnings statement, etc., and may collect and distribute information on volume of business transacted, inventories of merchandise on hand, simplification and standardization of products, stabilization of prices, and all matters which may arise from time to time relating to the growth and development of industry and commerce in order to promote stabilization of employment and give the best service to the public. Much of this sort of exchange of information and data is already being carried on by trade associations now in existence. A great deal more valuable work of this character is possible.

3. The public interest shall be protected by the supervision of companies and trade associations by the Federal Trade Commission or by a bureau of the Department of Commerce or by some federal supervisory body specially constituted.

4. All companies within the scope of this plan shall be required to adopt standard accounting and cost systems and standardized forms of balance sheet and earnings statement. These systems and forms may differ for the different industries, but will follow a uniform plan for each industry as adopted by the trade association and approved by the federal supervisory body.

5. All companies with participants or stockholders numbering 25 or more, and living in more than one state, shall send to its participants or stockholders and to the supervisory body at least once each quarter a statement of their business and earnings in the prescribed form. At least once each year they shall send to the participants or stockholders and to the supervisory body a complete balance sheet and earnings statement in the prescribed form. In this way the owners will be kept informed of the conditions of the business in such detail that there may be no criticism of irregularity or infrequency of statements or methods of presentation.

6. The federal supervisory body shall cooperate with the Internal Revenue Department and the trade associations in developing for each industry standardized forms of balance sheet and income statement, depending upon the character of the business, for the purpose of reconciling methods of reporting assets and income with the basis of values and income calculated for federal tax purposes.

7. All of the companies of the character described herein may immediately adopt the provisions of this plan but shall be required to do so within 3 years unless the time is extended by the federal supervisory body. Similar companies formed after the plan becomes effective may come in at once but shall be required to come in before the expiration of 3 years from the date of their organization unless the time is extended by the federal supervisory body.

8. For the protection of employees, the following plans shall be adopted by all of these companies:

(A) A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, which is part of the legislation necessary under this plan, shall, after careful study, be modeled after the best features of the laws which have been enacted by the several states.

(B) LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE. All employees of companies included in this plan may, after two years' service with such companies, and shall, before the expiration of five years of service, be covered by life and disability insurance.

(1) The form of policy shall be determined by the association of which the Company is a member and approved by the federal supervisory body. The policy will belong to the employee and may be retained by him and kept in full force when he changes his employment or otherwise discontinues particular service as outlined later.

(2) The face value of a policy shall be for an amount approximately equal to one year's pay, but not more than $5,000, with the exception that the employee may, if he desires, increase at his own cost the amount of insurance carried, subject to the approval of the Board of Administrators, later defined.

(3) The cost of this life and disability insurance shall be paid one half by the employee and one-half by the company for which he works, with the following exception: the company's cost shall be determined on the basis of premiums at actual age of employees less than 35 years old and on the basis of 35 years of age for all employees 35 or over and shall be a face value of approximately one-half a year's pay but limited to a maximum premium for $2,500 of insurance. An employee taking out insurance at age 35 or over will pay the excess premium over the amount based upon age 35. This will remove the necessity for restriction against engaging employees or transferring them from one company to another because of advanced age, as it will place no undue burden of high premiums upon the company.

(4) The life and disability insurance may be carried by a life insurance company selected by the trade association and approved by the federal supervisory body or may be carried by a company organized by the trade association and approved by the federal supervisory body, or a single company may be formed to serve all associations.

(5) The administration of the insurance plan for each company shall be under the direction of a Board of Administrators consisting of representatives, one-half elected by the employee members. The powers and duties of the Board for each company will be to formulate general rules relating to eligibility of employees, etc., but such rules shall be in consonance with the general plan laid down by the General Board of Administration of the trade association of which the company is a member, and approved by the federal supervisory body.

(6) Provision for the continuation of a policy after an employee leaves one company and goes to another in the same association, or goes to a company in another trade association; continuance of the policy after retirement on pension; provisions with regard to beneficiaries; total or partial disability; method of payment of premiums by payroll deductions or otherwise, weekly, monthly
or annually, shall be embodied in the plan formulated by the trade association, with the approval of the federal supervisory body.

(7) If an employee leaves a company to go with one which is not a member of the trade association; if he engages in business for himself; or if he withdraws from industrial or commercial occupation, he may elect to retain the portion of the policy for which he has paid, in whole, or in part, by the continued payment of the proportional full premium costs, or he may receive a paid up policy, or be paid the cash surrender value for the part for which he has been paying the premiums. The cash surrender value of that portion of the policy paid for by the company will be paid to the company which paid the premiums.

(C) PENSIONS. All employees of companies included in this plan shall be covered by old age pension plans which will be adopted by the trade associations and approved by the federal supervisory body. The principal provisions will be as follows:

(1) All employees may, after two years of service with a company coming within the scope of this plan, and shall, before the expiration of five years of service, be covered by the old age pension plan.

(2) All employees after two years' service may, and after five years' service shall be required to, put aside a minimum of one per cent of earnings, but not more than $50 per year, for the pension fund. The employee may, if he desires, put aside a larger amount, subject to the approval of the Board of Administrators.

(3) The Company shall be required to put aside an amount equal to the minimum stated above, namely one per cent of earnings of employees, but not more than $50 per year per employee.

(4) The above minimum percentage shall be the same for all employees who are less than 35 years of age when payments begin and the minimum percentage for these employees shall remain the same thereafter. The percentage to be set aside by employees coming into the pension plan at 35 years of age or over shall be so determined that it will provide a retiring allowance at age 70 the same as though they had begun one per cent payments at the age of 35. These provisions enable employees to go from one company to another in the same association or to different associations at any age with provision for retiring allowances which will be not less than the minimum rate of an employee who entered the pension plan at age 35.

(5) The amounts set aside by the employee and the company with interest compounded semiannually at five per cent until retirement at age 70, for a typical average employee, would provide an annuity of approximately one-half pay.

(6) The administration of the pension plan for each company shall be under the direction of a Board of Administrators, consisting of representatives, one-half appointed by the management and one half elected by the employee members. The powers and duties of the Board for each company will be to formulate general rules relating to eligibility of employees, conditions of retirement, etc., but such rules shall be in consonance with the general plan laid down by the General Board of Administration of the trade association of which the company is a member, and approved by the federal supervisory body.

(7) The amounts collected from the employees and the companies shall be placed with the pension trust organized by the association, the management of which shall be under the direction of the General Board of Administration referred to hereafter. In no case shall such funds be left under the control of an individual company.

(8) The Pension trust shall invest all funds and place them to the credit of the individual employees, including the income earned by the trust. If an employee goes from one company to another in the same association, the funds accumulated to his credit shall be continued to his credit with proper record of transfer. If an employee goes to a company in another association, the funds accumulated to his credit shall be transferred to his credit in the pension trust of the association to which he goes. If an employee goes to a company which does not come under these provisions or which is not a member of a trade association; goes into business for himself; or withdraws from an industrial or commercial occupation, the amount of his payments plus the interest at the average rate earned by the funds shall be given to him. If an employee dies before reaching retirement age, his beneficiary will receive the amount of his payments plus interest at the average rate earned by the funds. When an employee reaches retirement age, the entire amount accumulated to his credit, including his own payments and those of the company, plus accumulated interest, will be given to him in the form of an annuity. If an employee goes to a company which does not come under these provisions or which is not a member of a trade association; goes into business for himself; or withdraws from industrial or commercial occupation, he may elect to let the amount to his credit (namely, his own payments plus those of the company and the
accumulated interest) remain with the pension trust for transfer, if he should return to the employ of any company coming within the provisions of this plan. If he does not return to the employ of a company coming under these provisions, he may at any time thereafter withdraw the amount of his own payments plus interest at the average rate earned by the funds up to that time. Company contributions and accumulated interest credited to employees who die, or for reasons indicated above, receive or withdraw their own contributions and interest, shall be returned to the employer or employers who made the contributions.

(9) The rules governing the payments of pensions on retirement and all other rules governing its continuance shall be made by the trade association, approved by the federal supervisory body, and observed by the General Board of Administration and the Boards of Administration of the member companies.

(D) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. All employees on piece work, hourly work daily, weekly, or monthly work, with normal pay of $5,000 per year or less (approximately $96.15 per week) shall be covered by unemployment insurance.

(1) All such employees may, after two years of service with a company coming within the provisions of this plan, and shall, after five years of service, be each required to put aside a minimum of one per cent of earnings, but not more than $50 per year for an unemployment insurance fund.

(2) The company shall be required to put aside an amount equal to that put aside by the employees, as set forth above, namely one per cent of the earnings of each employee, but not more than $50 per year for each such employee.

(3) If a company regularizes and guarantees employment for at least 50 per cent of the normal wage paid each year to such employees, the company assessment for employees covered by such guarantee need not be made, but the employees will pay in a minimum of one per cent of earnings, but not more than $50 per year, into a special fund for their own benefit.
If such an employee leaves the company, dies or retires on pension, the amount to his credit in the special fund plus interest at the average rate earned by the special fund, shall be given to him or to his beneficiaries or added to his pension.

(4) If a company so plans its work that it is able to reduce unemployment, when the amount of such company's credit in the normal unemployment fund is equal to but not less than 5 per cent of the normal annual earnings of the employees covered, the company may cease making payment to the fund. Employees' payments will continue. The company will resume payments when its credit in the normal unemployment fund falls below 5 per cent of normal annual earnings of the employees covered.

(5) When the weekly payments made from the fund for unemployment benefits amount to 2 per cent or more of the average weekly earnings of participating employees, the company shall declare an unemployment emergency, and normal payments by the employees and the company shall cease. Thereafter all employees of the company (including the highest officers) receiving 50 per cent or more of their average full-time earnings shall pay 1 per cent of their current earnings to the unemployment fund. A similar amount shall be paid into the fund by the company. The unemployment emergency shall continue until normal conditions are restored, which shall be determined by the Board of Administrators of each company. Thereupon normal payments will be resumed.

(6) The main provisions for the distribution of the funds shall follow along these lines, unless modified by the Board of Administrators as set forth in Section D, paragraph 7 hereof. A certain small percentage of the normal payments of the employees and the company may be considered as available for helping participating employees in need. A larger percentage of such normal payments may be considered as available for loans to participating employees in amounts not exceeding $200 each, with or without interest as may be determined by the Board. The balance of the funds shall be available for unemployment payments. Unemployment payments shall begin after the first two weeks of unemployment and shall amount to approximately 50 per cent of the participating employee's average weekly or monthly earnings for full time, but in no case more than $20 per week. Such payments to individual employees shall continue for no longer than ten weeks in any twelve consecutive months unless extended by the Board. When a participating employee is working part-time because of lack of work and receiving less than 50 per cent of his average weekly or monthly earnings for full time, he shall be eligible for payments to be made from the fund, amounting to the difference between the amount he is receiving as wages from the company and the maximum he may be entitled to as outlined above.

(7) The custody and investment of funds and administration of the unemployment insurance plan for each company shall be under the direction of a Board of Administrators consisting of representatives, one-half appointed by the management and one-half elected by the employee members. The powers and duties of the Board shall be to formulate general rules relating to eligibility of employees, the waiting period before benefits are paid, amounts of benefits and how long they shall continue in any year, whether loans shall be made in time of unemployment or need, whether a portion of the funds shall be placed at the disposal of the Board for relief from need arising from causes other than unemployment, etc., but such rules shall be in consonance with the general plan laid down by the General Board of Administration of the trade association of which the company is a member, and approved by the federal supervisory body.

(8) If an employee leaves the company and goes to work for another company coming within the provisions of this plan, the proportionate amount remaining of his normal contributions, plus interest at the average rate earned by the funds, shall be transferred to such company and to his credit. If he leaves for other reasons, dies or retires on pension, the proportionate amount remaining of his normal payment, plus interest at the average rate earned by the funds, shall be given to him, or to his beneficiary, or added to his pension. When such employee's credit is transferred to another company, or paid to the employee or to his beneficiary under this provision, an equal amount shall be paid to the cooperating company.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION. Each trade association will form a General Board of Administration which shall consist of nine members, three to be elected or appointed by the association, three to be elected by the employees of the member companies, and three, representing the public, to be appointed by the federal supervisory body. The members of the General Board, except employee representatives, shall serve without compensation. The employee representatives shall be paid their regular rates of pay for time devoted to Board work, and all members shall be paid traveling expenses, all of which shall be borne by the trade association. The powers and duties of this General Board shall be to interpret the life and disability insurance, pension and unemployment insurance plans adopted by the trade association and approved by the federal supervisory body, supervise the individual company Boards of Administration, form and direct a pension trust for the custody, investment, and disbursements of the pension funds, and in general supervise and direct all activities connected with life and disability insurance, pension and unemployment insurance plans."
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #38
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Could someone here explain to me what would be the advantage of privatizing a local fire department or water works? I don't know if Alex or Rick go as far as advocating that, but Murray Rothbard certainly did.
private companies look out for the public interest better than government. just look at how Enron stepped up to the plate when california deregulated its power.
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #39
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
alex doesn't even think government should be funding science. TLibertardB
I'm not too hot on government-funded science most of the time either. It too often results in fraudulent or politicized science, like AIDS or "climate change" (formerly "global warming") research, or the dumping of fluoride in our water.

I'm a little more sympathetic to government grants for the arts, as long as what's being funded is something the entire public can enjoy and reflects something about our heritage or national values (in other words, as long as the grants aren't given to kikes who immerse crucifixes in urine and call it "art"). If it were all up to capitalism, it'd be Britney Spears everywhere, all the time.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 22nd, 2009 #40
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Rick: you're still not getting my point. I am not saying that unions are perfect angels, that they always do good, and that businessmen are all evil swine always out to screw the little man. I am not even saying that children should not be allowed to work -- in fact, I am against forcing kids to stay in school if they don't want to be there and have better things to do (like work).

What I am saying is that businessmen are not always perfect little innocent angels either, and it's as ridiculous to argue that they should be given unlimited power to do as they please as arguing that the government should. You want to give control of our oceans to private corporations -- are you nuts? How would that benefit the little guy, the little fisherman?

What I am saying is that the working class at one time had valid complaints against their employers, and that much of the progress that was brought about by the labor movement is being taken for granted today by guys like you. I can't believe anyone would think it was a good idea to return to the types of working conditions that existed 100+ years ago in the name of some libertarian ideal.

What I am saying is that there are many socialist institutions, like municipal fire departments, that most people take for granted today, that are good. There is no advantage to privatizing something like a fire department, especially in an urban or suburban environment where if my neighbor's house catches on fire, there's a good chance mine will as well. I'd rather not leave it to my neighbor to decide whether he should pay into the services of a private fire department or not.

I'm becoming convinced that hardcore libertarians are just as tardy and out of touch with reality as the Marxists.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; July 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 AM.
 
Reply

Tags
austrian school, chinese exclusion act, libertarianism is jewish, ludwig von mises, socialism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 AM.
Page generated in 0.40729 seconds.