Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer
in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent
benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to
restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with
benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of
financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these
figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe
benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by
unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

€Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the
same as in the private sector.

[image deleted] Public employee protests spread across the Midwest.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241958
02.jpg

€State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan.
That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the
employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in
place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a
total of 13%.

€Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension,
Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a
1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an
additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension.
Teachers contribute nothing.

€Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's
pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less
expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining
agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions
for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of
salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The
divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

€Health care for current employees. Under the current collective-
bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for
medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage.
These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the
teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not
surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for
health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For
private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

[Image deleted] Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241526
01.jpg

€Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more
in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the
case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their
pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare
does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire
premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in
premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has
not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster
waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and
active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is
36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees'
benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the
benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance
contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is
prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for
employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar
paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions,
plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe
benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective
bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state
legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees'
contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective
bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a
supplemental pension plan‹again with no employee contribution. Finally,
the employees' contribution (or lack thereof) to the cost of health
insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal
to restrict collective bargaining to salaries‹not benefits‹seems
entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the
University of Arkansas.

From The Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2011, page A15.

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer
in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent
benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to
restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with
benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of
financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these
figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe
benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by
unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

?Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the
same as in the private sector.

[image deleted] Public employee protests spread across the Midwest.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241958
02.jpg

?State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan.
That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the
employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in
place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a
total of 13%.

?Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension,
Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a
1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an
additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension.
Teachers contribute nothing.

?Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's
pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less
expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining
agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions
for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of
salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The
divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

?Health care for current employees. Under the current collective-
bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for
medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage.
These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the
teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not
surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for
health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For
private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

[Image deleted] Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241526
01.jpg

?Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more
in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the
case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their
pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare
does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire
premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in
premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has
not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster
waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and
active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is
36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees'
benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the
benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance
contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is
prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for
employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar
paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions,
plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe
benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective
bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state
legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees'
contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective
bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a
supplemental pension plan the employees' contribution (or lack thereof)
to the cost of health
insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal
to restrict collective bargaining to salaries entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the
University of Arkansas.

From The Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2011, page A15.

Calling on all republicans who currently hold union jobs......time to do the
right thing and quit on principle.

Walk away don't ever look back...


--

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer
in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent
benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to
restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with
benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of
financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these
figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe
benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by
unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

?Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the
same as in the private sector.

[image deleted] Public employee protests spread across the Midwest.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241958
02.jpg

?State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan.
That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the
employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in
place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a
total of 13%.

?Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension,
Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a
1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an
additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension.
Teachers contribute nothing.

?Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's
pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less
expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining
agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions
for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of
salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The
divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

?Health care for current employees. Under the current collective-
bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for
medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage.
These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the
teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not
surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for
health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For
private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

[Image deleted] Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241526
01.jpg

?Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more
in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the
case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their
pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare
does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire
premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in
premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has
not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster
waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and
active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is
36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees'
benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the
benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance
contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is
prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for
employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar
paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions,
plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe
benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective
bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state
legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees'
contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective
bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a
supplemental pension plan the employees' contribution (or lack thereof)
to the cost of health
insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal
to restrict collective bargaining to salaries entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the
University of Arkansas.

From The Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2011, page A15.

Calling on all republicans who currently hold union jobs......time to do
the right thing and quit on principle.

Walk away don't ever look back...


First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

--

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

Calling on all republicans who currently hold union jobs......time to do
the right thing and quit on principle.

Walk away don't ever look back...


Might as well

--The Democrats have plenty of stopgaps for the unemployed...

Let THEM pay for freeloaders

SEE: Red state welfare

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

--

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.


(Wall St propaganda snipped)

Like any good propaganda piece, this blatantly ignores the facts. First of
all, the reason people are protesting in Wisconsin is not about any
particular salary or benefit cuts. It is because the proposed law would
forever ban collective bargaining. In other words, union busting. The
goverment has near-monopoly power in hiring teachers, it makes sense that
teachers should have some power to counter balance that. If you want to be
a teacher, except for a very small market in private schools, you have to be
hired by the goverment.

Second, there is no reference or documentation given for that 74.2% number
which does not seem quite right. This other anti-union article (
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...average-75-587
) says the benefits rate was 52% and the average salary was $49,580
(Costrell said it was $56,500) Who is right, or are both inflated?

You can see the raw data here and come up with you own figures. It is clear
that 74.2% number is bull****.
http://dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html

"anorton" wrote in message
m...

(Wall St propaganda snipped)

Like any good propaganda piece, this blatantly ignores the facts. First
of all, the reason people are protesting in Wisconsin is not about any
particular salary or benefit cuts. It is because the proposed law would
forever ban collective bargaining. In other words, union busting. The
goverment has near-monopoly power in hiring teachers, it makes sense that
teachers should have some power to counter balance that. If you want to
be a teacher, except for a very small market in private schools, you have
to be hired by the goverment.

Second, there is no reference or documentation given for that 74.2% number
which does not seem quite right. This other anti-union article (
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...average-75-587 )
says the benefits rate was 52% and the average salary was $49,580
(Costrell said it was $56,500) Who is right, or are both inflated?

You can see the raw data here and come up with you own figures. It is
clear that 74.2% number is bull****.
http://dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html

Basically, there is the "over 250K earners" who can easily afford to send
their kids to private schools..

Then there is the rest of us-and as far as the "over 250K earners" are
concerned they can hire illegals to teach our kids after all it's in their
best interest to control acess to education and the best way to accomplish
this is probably to make better education be a luxury item.

--

On Feb 28, 11:10*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer
in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent
benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to
restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with
benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of
financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these
figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe
benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by
unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the
same as in the private sector.

[image deleted] *Public employee protests spread across the Midwest.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241958
02.jpg

State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan.
That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the
employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in
place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a
total of 13%.

Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension,
Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a
1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an
additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension.
Teachers contribute nothing.

Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's
pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less
expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining
agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions
for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of
salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The
divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

Health care for current employees. Under the current collective-
bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for
medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage.
These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the
teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not
surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for
health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For
private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

[Image deleted] *Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241526
01.jpg

Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more
in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the
case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their
pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare
does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire
premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in
premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has
not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster
waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and
active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is
36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees'
benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the
benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance
contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is
prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for
employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar
paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions,
plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe
benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective
bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state
legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees'
contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective
bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a
supplemental pension plan again with no employee contribution. Finally,
the employees' contribution (or lack thereof) to the cost of health
insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal
to restrict collective bargaining to salaries not benefits seems
entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the
University of Arkansas.

From The Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2011, page A15.

Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. Good article.

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. Good article.

Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for
base pay. And I'm sure the President knows that the average federal worker
pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in
Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.

Furthermore, I'm sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised
the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in
Wisconsin.

I'm sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin,
and isn't acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing
another."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...nions/1?csp=34

On Mar 1, 11:02*am, "David Courtney" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...

Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. *Good article.

* * Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for
base pay. And I'm sure the President knows that the average federal worker
pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in
Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.

Furthermore, I'm sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised
the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in
Wisconsin.

I'm sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin,
and isn't acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing
another."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...11/03/obama-vs...

What a load of condescending horse****.

anorton wrote:

Second, there is no reference or documentation given for that 74.2% number
which does not seem quite right.

Doesn't really matter if it accurate.

The WSJ is surprisingly ignorant of economics.

The collective bargaining process in wisconsin is based on "total
package" computation. Total package increases have been capped by law
for the last 10 years. This means teachers in order to cover increases
in benefits have opted for no pay increases or even cuts in pay in
past year contracts.

Benefits are just a part of the total pay package.

-jim





This other anti-union article (
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...average-75-587
) says the benefits rate was 52% and the average salary was $49,580
(Costrell said it was $56,500) Who is right, or are both inflated?

You can see the raw data here and come up with you own figures. It is clear
that 74.2% number is bull****.
http://dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html

"David Courtney" wrote in message
...

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. Good article.

Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for
base pay.

A sleazy deception by the governor. The vast majority of federal employees
have collective bargaining rights. Those that don't have mostly been limited
by Bush, using the excuse that they are in security jobs and we can't allow
bargaining while there are Arab terrorists running arount.

"I support collective bargaining rights for all workers. As President, I
will review
decisions by the Bush Administration that have denied these rights to
federal employees and seek
to restore them." -- Obama, Oct. 20, 2008

In October 2010, Obama repealed the executive order by Bush that had
restricted bargaining rights for employees of the National Security
Personnel System. Another of the similar Bush-era restrictions is under
review. The third one hasn't been addressed yet.

On Feb 11th of this year, the 40,000 employees of the TSA were granted
collective bargaining rights. There are various rules under which Federal
employees are grouped, some of which have bargaining rights, and some of
which do not.

Perhaps the governor doesn't know this. So maybe he ought to keep his mouth
shut until he learns.

And maybe the people cheering for him ought to check their facts, because it
appears you can't believe a word he says. He's one of those who you should
always assume is lying, until you check it out yourself.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/28/2011 9:10 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.



NO, it doesn't prove that at all. What it proves is that the negotiators
for the state are not very good at their job. Just because you have to
negotiate with a union doesn't mean you have to give them everything
they ask for. It seems that in Wisconsin giving in on everything is what
the state has done. So it's not that the teachers have collective
bargaining that is the problem, the problem is with the negotiators the
state has. Look around and you will see plenty of examples where the
state or the business deals with unions and the unions don't get
everything they want.

This is a political game to strip the state employees of collective
bargaining for one reason only, so in the future there will be no
bargaining. The state will be able to tell the teachers and other state
workers what they can have and if they don't like it, too bad. It's how
to put a stop to negotiating and start dictating to the workers. Nothing
new here, move along.

Hawke

On 2/28/2011 9:23 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

Calling on all republicans who currently hold union jobs......time to do the
right thing and quit on principle.

Walk away don't ever look back...


And don't ever expect to get "union" pay or benefits again.

Hawke

On 2/28/2011 10:24 PM, anorton wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.


(Wall St propaganda snipped)

Like any good propaganda piece, this blatantly ignores the facts. First
of all, the reason people are protesting in Wisconsin is not about any
particular salary or benefit cuts. It is because the proposed law would
forever ban collective bargaining. In other words, union busting. The
goverment has near-monopoly power in hiring teachers, it makes sense
that teachers should have some power to counter balance that. If you
want to be a teacher, except for a very small market in private schools,
you have to be hired by the goverment.

Second, there is no reference or documentation given for that 74.2%
number which does not seem quite right. This other anti-union article (
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...average-75-587
) says the benefits rate was 52% and the average salary was $49,580
(Costrell said it was $56,500) Who is right, or are both inflated?

You can see the raw data here and come up with you own figures. It is
clear that 74.2% number is bull****.
http://dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html


It's also clear that what the republicans want is to force the public
employees wages and benefits down to the level of what the private
sector pays. You'll notice that they always point out how much more
workers in the public sector make compared to those in the private
sector. As if that's bad. What the republicans want is to force everyone
who works to work for less pay and benefits. That's what all businesses
do to their employees. The problem with that is the public workers do
things like teach your kids and prepare them for the future. So who
wants to cut teachers down so that they do a worse job at teaching your
children? The people want the best schools they can get. You won't get
that when you drive down wages and benefits for teachers.

It's the same for all the other public sector workers too. Want to cut
the pay and benefits for cops, firemen, and everybody else? Okay, then
expect to get a lot worse service from them in the future. You pay lousy
wages, you get lousy workers, and they do a lousy job. Who wants that?
Nobody but the republicans and that's what they want to give you. But
the people voted for the republicans. I think buyer's remorse is really
starting to settle in.

Hawke

On Mar 1, 1:16*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"David Courtney" wrote in message

...



"Denis G." wrote in message
....
Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. *Good article.

* *Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for
base pay.

A sleazy deception by the governor. The vast majority of federal employees
have collective bargaining rights. .
snip

This article seems to back up Walker's claim:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...membershi.html

although, I'm not sure why you would want to believe The Washington
Post. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 1:16 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"David Courtney" wrote in message

...



"Denis G." wrote in message
...
Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. Good article.

Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it
for
base pay.

A sleazy deception by the governor. The vast majority of federal employees
have collective bargaining rights. .
snip

This article seems to back up Walker's claim:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...membershi.html

although, I'm not sure why you would want to believe The Washington
Post. g

As I said, it's a sleazy deception. The vast majority of federal employees
are entitled to collective bargaining, if they choose to take advantage of
it. The article just says that most of them are not union organized, not
that they aren't entitled to it. They have the *right*. Walker wants to take
away the right. So he's being deceptive in the sleazy way he worded his
statement. He's one slippery dude.

As for the Washington Post, I'll believe most of what they say because
they're among the half-dozen or so most reliable journalistic enterprises in
North America.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 1, 8:05*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...
On Mar 1, 1:16 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



"David Courtney" wrote in message

...

"Denis G." wrote in message
....
Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. Good article.

Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it
for
base pay.

A sleazy deception by the governor. The vast majority of federal employees
have collective bargaining rights. .

snip

This article seems to back up Walker's claim:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...deral_worker_u...

although, I'm not sure why you would want to believe The Washington
Post. g

As I said, it's a sleazy deception. The vast majority of federal employees
are entitled to collective bargaining, if they choose to take advantage of
it. The article just says that most of them are not union organized, not
that they aren't entitled to it. They have the *right*. Walker wants to take
away the right. So he's being deceptive in the sleazy way he worded his
statement. He's one slippery dude.

As for the Washington Post, I'll believe most of what they say because
they're among the half-dozen or so most reliable journalistic enterprises in
North America.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Go back and read his quote again. He's talking about collective
bargaining, not collective bargaining "rights." He stands to lose
millions of dollars from the federal government if he gets rid of the
unions. He's trying to limit their power, while the federal
government clearly wants to encourage the growth of unions. Besides,
the "right" to collective bargaining is not a right any more than you
have a right to food, clothing and shelter. Oh well, the silver
lining is that you're talking about principles now. That's a step up
from being a pragmatist. g

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 8:05 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...
On Mar 1, 1:16 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



"David Courtney" wrote in message

...

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
Taxpayer pockets do have bottoms. Good article.

Great response to Obumpkin by Walker's office:

"I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have
collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it
for
base pay.

A sleazy deception by the governor. The vast majority of federal
employees
have collective bargaining rights. .

snip

This article seems to back up Walker's claim:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...deral_worker_u...

although, I'm not sure why you would want to believe The Washington
Post. g

As I said, it's a sleazy deception. The vast majority of federal employees
are entitled to collective bargaining, if they choose to take advantage of
it. The article just says that most of them are not union organized, not
that they aren't entitled to it. They have the *right*. Walker wants to
take
away the right. So he's being deceptive in the sleazy way he worded his
statement. He's one slippery dude.

As for the Washington Post, I'll believe most of what they say because
they're among the half-dozen or so most reliable journalistic enterprises
in
North America.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Go back and read his quote again. He's talking about collective
bargaining, not collective bargaining "rights."

One slippery dude, all right. He implies that Federal employees can't
bargain collectively. They can. Two-thirds of them just choose not to.

He stands to lose
millions of dollars from the federal government if he gets rid of the
unions. He's trying to limit their power, while the federal
government clearly wants to encourage the growth of unions.

Democrats want to encourage the growth of unions, not the federal government
in general. It's a partisan, philosophical battle.

Taking away collective bargaining and some other things included in his
bill, together, eliminate almost the entire function of unions. He wants to
bust them.

One step at a time, he's tried to dissemble about what he's doing. At first
he said he campaigned on the issue of limiting collective bargaining. Press
analyses of his campaign statements and their reports gave the lie to that,
so he's stopped saying it. Then he tried to say that the issue was just the
givebacks, until everyone in the country knew that the WI unions had already
agreed to the givebacks, and that he was trying to disguise his real issue.

Like most conservative Republicans for the past half-century, his goal is to
bust the unions. But he can't admit it, because he, too, can read the polls.
Americans have a love-hate relationship with unions, but they overwhelmingly
object to outlawing their right to bargain.

Besides,
the "right" to collective bargaining is not a right any more than you
have a right to food, clothing and shelter.

I shouldn't bring this up, but the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which the
US mostly wrote, signed, and never rescinded, says that we all have a right
to those things. d8-)

However, we have hundreds of rights. Read the Federalist Papers. They're
loaded with the word "rights," most of which are not the basic human rights
observed by practically all Americans. Under the law, most federal workers
have the right to form unions and to bargain collectively.

Oh well, the silver
lining is that you're talking about principles now. That's a step up
from being a pragmatist. g

I'm a pragmatist. When someone uses the words "politics" and "principles" in
the same sentence, I get a firm grip on my wallet and back slowly out the
door.

--
Ed Huntress

snip .. I get a firm grip on my wallet and back slowly out the
door.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you said that alone, you could have passed for a Republican. g

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
snip .. I get a firm grip on my wallet and back slowly out the
door.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you said that alone, you could have passed for a Republican. g

I *am* a registered Republican, and have been for decades. I was even a
delegate to my county Republican convention one year. The rest of them just
headed for the hills and left me here by myself. d8-(

sigh I'm waiting for the second coming of Ev Dirksen....

--
Ed Huntress

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:8Zidnf52wO39BfHQnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Then there is the rest of us-and as far as the "over 250K earners" are concerned
they can hire illegals to teach our kids after all it's in their best interest to
control acess to education and the best way to accomplish this is probably to make
better education be a luxury item.


The Universe let people like YOU have kids? Freighting! Did you drug their mother
for the mating process?

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin -- How can fringe benefits cost nearly
as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.

By ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees
boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays
Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and
health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The
corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer
in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent
benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to
restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with
benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of
financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these
figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe
benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by
unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

?Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the
same as in the private sector.

[image deleted] Public employee protests spread across the Midwest.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241958
02.jpg

?State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan.
That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the
employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in
place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a
total of 13%.

?Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension,
Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a
1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an
additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension.
Teachers contribute nothing.

?Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's
pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less
expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining
agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions
for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of
salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The
divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

?Health care for current employees. Under the current collective-
bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for
medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage.
These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the
teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not
surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for
health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For
private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

[Image deleted] Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...D_201102241526
01.jpg

?Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more
in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the
case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their
pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare
does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire
premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in
premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has
not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster
waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and
active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is
36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees'
benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the
benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance
contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is
prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for
employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar
paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions,
plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe
benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective
bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state
legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees'
contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective
bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a
supplemental pension plan the employees' contribution (or lack thereof) to the
cost of health
insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal
to restrict collective bargaining to salaries entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the
University of Arkansas.

From The Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2011, page A15.

Calling on all republicans who currently hold union jobs......time to do the right
thing and quit on principle.

Walk away don't ever look back...



YES! Every Republican SHOULD quit the blood sucking unions and never look back.

On Mar 2, 12:10*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...

snip *.. I get a firm grip on my wallet and back slowly out the
door.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you said that alone, you could have passed for a Republican. g

I *am* a registered Republican, and have been for decades. I was even a
delegate to my county Republican convention one year. The rest of them just
headed for the hills and left me here by myself. d8-(

sigh I'm waiting for the second coming of Ev Dirksen....

--
Ed Huntress

I'm curious as to your definition of "pragmatist." To me a pragmatist
is one who thinks that principles are secondary and he'll only use
them to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. Is that what
you really mean when you call yourself a pragmatist? Do you have
principles only until they become unconvenient? Life would be much
more simple, if I really believed that.

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 12:10 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...

snip .. I get a firm grip on my wallet and back slowly out the
door.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you said that alone, you could have passed for a Republican. g

I *am* a registered Republican, and have been for decades. I was even a
delegate to my county Republican convention one year. The rest of them
just
headed for the hills and left me here by myself. d8-(

sigh I'm waiting for the second coming of Ev Dirksen....

--
Ed Huntress

I'm curious as to your definition of "pragmatist." To me a pragmatist
is one who thinks that principles are secondary and he'll only use
them to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. Is that what
you really mean when you call yourself a pragmatist? Do you have
principles only until they become unconvenient? Life would be much
more simple, if I really believed that.

Fundamental principles, in the common sense of the term, aren't really
involved in the question. Ideology, not principle, is the opposite of
pragmatism.

When people get caught up in ideologies they start to believe that their
simplified theories are their "principles." A principle is something like
the idea that people should take responsibility for themselves, for their
own good and for that of the society they live in. An ideologue turns that
into something like social Darwinism, in which it's dog-eat-dog, and devil
take the hindmost. A pragmatist recognizes that taking responsibility is a
positive social force and a liberating one for the individual....for those
who are capable of it. But it eventually turns into something socially and
individually destructive, if it's pursued without constant attention, and
evaluation, about the desired end result.

The pragmatist recognizes that we all have different abilities to assume the
risks of failure, and asks if the purpose of this principle isn't defeated
by dogmatic, ideological pursuit of the idea in its pure form. Almost all
such principles wind up being counterproductive when they're carried to
ideological extremes.

A good example is the social safety net and its effect on innovation and
entrepreneurship. The ideologue says that safety nets destroy the risk side
of the risk/reward formula, and they say it's necessary to have a strong
risk of failure to stimulate a strong effort to succeed. But research shows
that too much risk discourages innovation. In the US, the safety-net issue
that damages our innovative ability is our fouled-up health care system. If
insurance isn't portable between companies, people stay put in jobs that are
less than their abilities. If financial loss means losing insurance for your
family, you're less inclined to go out on your own and try something
entrepreneurial. The pragmatist says, therefore, that we'll get the best
result if we sharply limit the risk part of the formula through a universal
health care system. The ideologue says we'll have destroyed the stimulus to
work hard if we do that. If the object is to free people to use their
imaginations and to innovate, the ideological position is self-defeating.

Thus, most of what serves as "principle" really is theoretical derivatives
that fill deductive niches in ideologies. The important political principle
is to assure a happy, fulfilling life for as many people in a society as
possible. The idea that taxes should be collected in equal percentages for
all, regardless of the amount or source of their income, is a derivative
that's based on ideology. The pragmatist evaluates this in terms of its
effect on the success of the society as a whole, and minimizes the value
judgments of ideologues in that consideration. It's a matter of what works.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 2, 9:52*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...
On Mar 2, 12:10 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





"Denis G." wrote in message

....

snip .. I get a firm grip on my wallet and back slowly out the
door.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you said that alone, you could have passed for a Republican. g

I *am* a registered Republican, and have been for decades. I was even a
delegate to my county Republican convention one year. The rest of them
just
headed for the hills and left me here by myself. d8-(

sigh I'm waiting for the second coming of Ev Dirksen....

--
Ed Huntress
I'm curious as to your definition of "pragmatist." *To me a pragmatist
is one who thinks that principles are secondary and he'll only use
them to get what he wants. *The ends justify the means. *Is that what
you really mean when you call yourself a pragmatist? *Do you have
principles only until they become unconvenient? *Life would be much
more simple, if I really believed that.

Fundamental principles, in the common sense of the term, aren't really
involved in the question. Ideology, not principle, is the opposite of
pragmatism.

When people get caught up in ideologies they start to believe that their
simplified theories are their "principles." A principle is something like
the idea that people should take responsibility for themselves, for their
own good and for that of the society they live in. An ideologue turns that
into something like social Darwinism, in which it's dog-eat-dog, and devil
take the hindmost. A pragmatist recognizes that taking responsibility is a
positive social force and a liberating one for the individual....for those
who are capable of it. But it eventually turns into something socially and
individually destructive, if it's pursued without constant attention, and
evaluation, about the desired end result.

The pragmatist recognizes that we all have different abilities to assume the
risks of failure, and asks if the purpose of this principle isn't defeated
by dogmatic, ideological pursuit of the idea in its pure form. Almost all
such principles wind up being counterproductive when they're carried to
ideological extremes.

A good example is the social safety net and its effect on innovation and
entrepreneurship. The ideologue says that safety nets destroy the risk side
of the risk/reward formula, and they say it's necessary to have a strong
risk of failure to stimulate a strong effort to succeed. But research shows
that too much risk discourages innovation. In the US, the safety-net issue
that damages our innovative ability is our fouled-up health care system. If
insurance isn't portable between companies, people stay put in jobs that are
less than their abilities. If financial loss means losing insurance for your
family, you're less inclined to go out on your own and try something
entrepreneurial. The pragmatist says, therefore, that we'll get the best
result if we sharply limit the risk part of the formula through a universal
health care system. The ideologue says we'll have destroyed the stimulus to
work hard if we do that. If the object is to free people to use their
imaginations and to innovate, the ideological position is self-defeating.

Thus, most of what serves as "principle" really is theoretical derivatives
that fill deductive niches in ideologies. The important political principle
is to assure a happy, fulfilling life for as many people in a society as
possible. The idea that taxes should be collected in equal percentages for
all, regardless of the amount or source of their income, is a derivative
that's based on ideology. The pragmatist evaluates this in terms of its
effect on the success of the society as a whole, and minimizes the value
judgments of ideologues in that consideration. It's a matter of what works.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I guess that we just disagree at the outset. To me principles
and ideologies are the same. This country became rich because we
allowed people freedom to choose and make agreements between
themselves without coercion. We got the best healthcare and rewarded
the best doctors and the best hospitals with profit. Everyone blames
the free market for the messes, but it's because it's the government
that's so heavily involved in banking and healthcare that we have such
a mess today. Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation. Oh, centralized economies
work so well and the former Soviet Union was such a shining example
with a system based on sound science. Yeah, right.
I’m an ideologue and we're diametrically opposed in every way, but
thank you for the response.

"Denis G." wrote:
We got the best healthcare and rewarded
the best doctors and the best hospitals with profit.

Best at what. Certainly not the best at keeping people healthy
Cuba has better doctors and nurses
if you measure patient outcomes and not financial profits


Everyone blames
the free market for the messes, but it's because it's the government
that's so heavily involved in banking and healthcare that we have such
a mess today.

How did health care get to be such a mess?
Reform has yet to be implemented.

Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did.

If the government didn't you'd be royally screwed and so would most
Europeans.
But you may get your wish yet
so don't give up hope


The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.
Oh, centralized economies
work so well and the former Soviet Union was such a shining example
with a system based on sound science.

for the average Russian the Soviet Union
It was a whole lot better than what it replaced
and better than what replaced it
the only people who benefited from its downfall
was the politicians that came to realization they could be rich
if they ditched the ideology

the average Russian has seen
their standard of living decline over the last 20 yrs



Yeah, right.
I’m an ideologue and we're diametrically opposed in every way, but
thank you for the response.

"Denis G." wrote in message
...

(long exchange snipped)

Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

(snip)

Denis,

This is exactly the sort of dangerous revisionist history that causes
well-meaning people such as you to be duped into supporting the aims of
financial cheats. "Old-time" bankers were ALWAYS getting into trouble
(http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w...king.panics.us) when there
were few regulations and no bailouts. The reason is that they gambled with
other people's money and even though the odds were pretty good they often
lost. If the bank went under and depositers lost their money, the banker
still kept his, and he could always start a new bank. It was because no-one
trusted banks anymore that stricter regulations were imposed and the FDIC
created.

Regulations are usually made in the aftermath of painful experience. If you
do not know history, you will repeat it.

On 2011-03-02, anorton wrote:

"Denis G." wrote in message
...

(long exchange snipped)

Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

(snip)

Denis,

This is exactly the sort of dangerous revisionist history that causes
well-meaning people such as you to be duped into supporting the aims of
financial cheats. "Old-time" bankers were ALWAYS getting into trouble
(http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w...king.panics.us) when there
were few regulations and no bailouts. The reason is that they gambled with
other people's money and even though the odds were pretty good they often
lost. If the bank went under and depositers lost their money, the banker
still kept his, and he could always start a new bank. It was because no-one
trusted banks anymore that stricter regulations were imposed and the FDIC
created.

Regulations are usually made in the aftermath of painful experience. If you
do not know history, you will repeat it.



This is a correct summary of unregulated financial history. It was
replete with panics and crashes, far worse than the Bush Depression.
In the end, of course, the bankers always had a great meal every
evening, which cannot be said about the other victims of those
financial crises.

I was a libertarian in my youth, but gave up on "libertarianism",
mostly because I understood that this simplistic ideology is heavily
subsidized by very unsavory interests.

i

On Mar 2, 11:31*am, "anorton"
wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...

(long exchange snipped)

*Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. *Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. *The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

(snip)

Denis,

This is exactly the sort of dangerous revisionist history that causes
well-meaning people such as you to be duped into supporting the aims of
financial cheats. "Old-time" bankers were ALWAYS getting into trouble
(http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w...king.panics.us) when there
were few regulations and no bailouts. The reason is that they gambled with
other people's money and even though the odds were pretty good they often
lost. If the bank went under and depositers lost their money, the banker
still kept his, and he could always start a new bank. *It was because no-one
trusted banks anymore that stricter regulations were imposed and the FDIC
created.

Regulations are usually made in the aftermath of painful experience. *If you
do not know history, you will repeat it.

If you go along with the crowd and accept the conventional
explanations for events in history, then I suppose that ANY differing
view will be a ”dangerous revisionist” one. I like history and I’ve
read unconventional views of events in history. I like Murray
Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression.” It analyzes what went on and
why it was so severe and protracted. It made sense to me and that’s
all I care about. (Many economist, like Ben Bernake, will now admit
to all the mistakes that were made by government, yet they stubbornly
persist trying to "fix" things.) There are similar explanations
revolve around the other banking panics, but they don’t fit with
mainstream thought. George Santayana’s quote is about remembering
history so we don’t repeat it. It’s also important to understand why
and to be satisfied with the answer.

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 11:31 am, "anorton"
wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...

(long exchange snipped)

Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

(snip)

Denis,

This is exactly the sort of dangerous revisionist history that causes
well-meaning people such as you to be duped into supporting the aims of
financial cheats. "Old-time" bankers were ALWAYS getting into trouble
(http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w...king.panics.us) when there
were few regulations and no bailouts. The reason is that they gambled with
other people's money and even though the odds were pretty good they often
lost. If the bank went under and depositers lost their money, the banker
still kept his, and he could always start a new bank. It was because
no-one
trusted banks anymore that stricter regulations were imposed and the FDIC
created.

Regulations are usually made in the aftermath of painful experience. If
you
do not know history, you will repeat it.

If you go along with the crowd and accept the conventional
explanations for events in history, then I suppose that ANY differing
view will be a ”dangerous revisionist” one. I like history and I’ve
read unconventional views of events in history. I like Murray
Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression.” It analyzes what went on and
why it was so severe and protracted. It made sense to me and that’s
all I care about. (Many economist, like Ben Bernake, will now admit
to all the mistakes that were made by government, yet they stubbornly
persist trying to "fix" things.) There are similar explanations
revolve around the other banking panics, but they don’t fit with
mainstream thought. George Santayana’s quote is about remembering
history so we don’t repeat it. It’s also important to understand why
and to be satisfied with the answer.

If you're reading Rothbard and Santayana and taking them to heart, I won't
try to disagree with you. Rothbard, the originator of "anarcho-capitalism"
and an acolyte of the Austrian School of economics, has created an entire
alternate economic reality. It also explains your take on ideology versus
pragmatism.

Just for the record, though, you've thrown your lot in with a real outlier
who is not taken seriously by many economists today. As he often admitted,
following in the footsteps of von Mises, his theories were "a priori"
theories that are really pure speculation, with no rigor and no necessary
connection to the world as it is. He prided himself in being
"non-empirical." In other words, like von Hayek and the other Austrian
School types, he basically blew it all out his butt in a fit of speculative
imagination. g

That's not to denigrate him as a powerful thinker and philosopher. It's just
that you'd might as well read a novel as to read Rothbard. It's the same
kind of insights and imagination.

I gave up on him at about the same time I gave up on the wit and wisdom of
Milton Friedman, when events proved that they were both off base. But
Friedman was a lot closer to reality than Rothbard. It's just that he didn't
see the train wrecks coming that upended some of his key ideas. Likewise,
Marx never anticipated progressivism, which short-circuited his speculation
about the historic inevitability of communism, and von Hayek never
anticipated social democracy, which short-circuited his speculation about
the historic inevitability of absolute central planning, as he described in
_The Road to Serfdom_.

Rothbard is a good read, though. I especially liked it when he turned on Ayn
Rand and called her a cultist. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-03-02, Edward A. Falk wrote:
The public pays for the teachers' retirement fund only in the sense that
the teachers are public employees and thus *all* their compensation
comes from public funds. Retirement plans, health care, vacation are
all part of their negotiated compensation.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01...e-big-wis.html

What's happening in Wisconsin is just good old-fashioned union-busting
on behalf of the Koch brothers.


It may also be a smokescreen and a diversion of public attention, away
from proposed selling of Wisconsin utility rights to the governor's
benefactors Koch Brothers.

This whole libertarian movement is truly deserving of the term
"libtard", and includes clueless underpaid idealists, led from behind
the curtains by the likes of Koch Brothers and other "moneyed
interests".

i

"Ignoramus13991" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-02, Edward A. Falk wrote:
The public pays for the teachers' retirement fund only in the sense that
the teachers are public employees and thus *all* their compensation
comes from public funds. Retirement plans, health care, vacation are
all part of their negotiated compensation.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01...e-big-wis.html

What's happening in Wisconsin is just good old-fashioned union-busting
on behalf of the Koch brothers.


It may also be a smokescreen and a diversion of public attention, away
from proposed selling of Wisconsin utility rights to the governor's
benefactors Koch Brothers.

This whole libertarian movement is truly deserving of the term
"libtard", and includes clueless underpaid idealists, led from behind
the curtains by the likes of Koch Brothers and other "moneyed
interests".

i

No. You don't say? You mean that middle-income folks who favor eliminating
taxes on corporations, 15% income taxes on long-term investments, and
unregulated trading of unexplained derivatives have been hoodwinked? Say it
ain't so! g

--
Ed Huntress

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's
making war, and we're winning." -- Warren Buffet, the Sage of Omaha

On 3/2/2011 8:43 AM, Denis G. wrote:

Well, I guess that we just disagree at the outset. To me principles
and ideologies are the same.

This is the problem dealing with right wing ideologues. They're wrong
about so many things that they can't come to right conclusions.
Principles and ideologies are not the same. Ideologies are sets of ideas
that someone has decided are "correct" and follows. Principles are not
the same.

This country became rich because we
allowed people freedom to choose and make agreements between
themselves without coercion.

This is an idea that you have. Where you got it I don't know but it's
not right. People have been free to choose and make agreements between
themselves without coercion all over the world and and for thousands of
years. Yet they didn't become rich. Most of the riches Americans have
are derived from the natural resources that are located here in
abundance, and from the brains and hard work of the people who moved
here from Europe. Not from the freedom to make contracts free from
coercion.



We got the best healthcare and rewarded
the best doctors and the best hospitals with profit.

By all the measurements America does not have the best health care. We
may have the best doctors and some of the best medical devices but we
don't have the best health care. We should, but the private for profit
insurance system is what keeps us from having the best health care.


Everyone blames
the free market for the messes, but it's because it's the government
that's so heavily involved in banking and healthcare that we have such
a mess today.


Wrong, once again. Too many examples exist that show where free markets
not regulated by governments also have the condition of most of the
profits of the system going into the hands of only a few. In fact, show
me a free market system where there is any kind of economic equality.
Capitalism creates a small number of winners and a lot of losers. The
less governments are involved the more unfair the free markets are.



Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown.

A joke, right? Old time bankers went under left and right because of
rampant speculation. The history of banking is of continuous collapses
and panics.

Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

That's because it was the deregulation of the financial system that
caused it to melt down. The only thing you have said that's correct is
that the system isn't fixed. But that is because the big financial
interests have paid their republican lackeys to dilute the regulations
so that it's back to business as usual, meaning you can expect to see
another banking disaster before too long. The problem is lack of bank
regulation not that there is too much of it.


Oh, centralized economies
work so well and the former Soviet Union was such a shining example
with a system based on sound science.

Soviet central planning was bad. U.S. central planning during WWII was
very good. So score one for each.

Yeah, right.
I’m an ideologue and we're diametrically opposed in every way, but
thank you for the response.

You are definitely an ideologue. A right wing team member. Which is why
you are opposed to Ed, who while still pretending to be a republican is
really a RHINO. He's rational and knowledgeable so it makes perfect
sense that you would disagree with him. Because you're not.

Hawke

On 3/2/2011 12:36 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-02, Edward A. wrote:
The public pays for the teachers' retirement fund only in the sense that
the teachers are public employees and thus *all* their compensation
comes from public funds. Retirement plans, health care, vacation are
all part of their negotiated compensation.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01...e-big-wis.html

What's happening in Wisconsin is just good old-fashioned union-busting
on behalf of the Koch brothers.


It may also be a smokescreen and a diversion of public attention, away
from proposed selling of Wisconsin utility rights to the governor's
benefactors Koch Brothers.

This whole libertarian movement is truly deserving of the term
"libtard", and includes clueless underpaid idealists, led from behind
the curtains by the likes of Koch Brothers and other "moneyed
interests".

i

No. You don't say? You mean that middle-income folks who favor eliminating
taxes on corporations, 15% income taxes on long-term investments, and
unregulated trading of unexplained derivatives have been hoodwinked? Say it
ain't so!g


Well, if they haven't been that just means Fox News isn't doing its job!

Hawke

On 2011-03-02, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus13991" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-02, Edward A. Falk wrote:
The public pays for the teachers' retirement fund only in the sense that
the teachers are public employees and thus *all* their compensation
comes from public funds. Retirement plans, health care, vacation are
all part of their negotiated compensation.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01...e-big-wis.html

What's happening in Wisconsin is just good old-fashioned union-busting
on behalf of the Koch brothers.


It may also be a smokescreen and a diversion of public attention, away
from proposed selling of Wisconsin utility rights to the governor's
benefactors Koch Brothers.

This whole libertarian movement is truly deserving of the term
"libtard", and includes clueless underpaid idealists, led from behind
the curtains by the likes of Koch Brothers and other "moneyed
interests".

i

No. You don't say? You mean that middle-income folks who favor eliminating
taxes on corporations, 15% income taxes on long-term investments, and
unregulated trading of unexplained derivatives have been hoodwinked? Say it
ain't so! g


It would be too provocative to say what I really think about it.

A long time ago, when I was an MBA student at the University of
Chicago, I was offered internship at Koch Brothers. I declined because
I thought that it was a crazy corporation, based on the
interview. Also, the money the offered to pay me was really small, I
was kind of insulted. I did not know about them before that.

What I like about Warren Buffett, is that his ideology is not self
serving as far as becoming richer is concerned. He probably realizes
that it is better to be slightly less rich, but be in a better, more
stable society.

I admire WEB since approximately 1995 or 1996 at the latest, and own
shares in Berkshire since approximately that time. Listening to him
kept me out of a lot of trouble.

i

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/2/2011 8:43 AM, Denis G. wrote:

Well, I guess that we just disagree at the outset. To me principles
and ideologies are the same.

This is the problem dealing with right wing ideologues. They're wrong
about so many things that they can't come to right conclusions. Principles
and ideologies are not the same. Ideologies are sets of ideas that someone
has decided are "correct" and follows. Principles are not the same.

This country became rich because we
allowed people freedom to choose and make agreements between
themselves without coercion.

This is an idea that you have. Where you got it I don't know but it's not
right. People have been free to choose and make agreements between
themselves without coercion all over the world and and for thousands of
years. Yet they didn't become rich. Most of the riches Americans have are
derived from the natural resources that are located here in abundance, and
from the brains and hard work of the people who moved here from Europe.
Not from the freedom to make contracts free from coercion.



We got the best healthcare and rewarded
the best doctors and the best hospitals with profit.

By all the measurements America does not have the best health care. We may
have the best doctors and some of the best medical devices but we don't
have the best health care. We should, but the private for profit insurance
system is what keeps us from having the best health care.


Everyone blames
the free market for the messes, but it's because it's the government
that's so heavily involved in banking and healthcare that we have such
a mess today.


Wrong, once again. Too many examples exist that show where free markets
not regulated by governments also have the condition of most of the
profits of the system going into the hands of only a few. In fact, show me
a free market system where there is any kind of economic equality.
Capitalism creates a small number of winners and a lot of losers. The less
governments are involved the more unfair the free markets are.



Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown.

A joke, right? Old time bankers went under left and right because of
rampant speculation. The history of banking is of continuous collapses and
panics.

Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

That's because it was the deregulation of the financial system that caused
it to melt down. The only thing you have said that's correct is that the
system isn't fixed. But that is because the big financial interests have
paid their republican lackeys to dilute the regulations so that it's back
to business as usual, meaning you can expect to see another banking
disaster before too long. The problem is lack of bank regulation not that
there is too much of it.


Oh, centralized economies
work so well and the former Soviet Union was such a shining example
with a system based on sound science.

Soviet central planning was bad. U.S. central planning during WWII was
very good. So score one for each.

Yeah, right.
I’m an ideologue and we're diametrically opposed in every way, but
thank you for the response.

You are definitely an ideologue. A right wing team member. Which is why
you are opposed to Ed, who while still pretending to be a republican is
really a RHINO.

That's RINO, pard'. No "H." It says so right here on my membership card...

--
Ed Huntress

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's
making war, and we're winning." -- Warren Buffet

On Mar 2, 2:08*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...
On Mar 2, 11:31 am, "anorton"
wrote:





"Denis G." wrote in message

....

(long exchange snipped)

Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

(snip)

Denis,

This is exactly the sort of dangerous revisionist history that causes
well-meaning people such as you to be duped into supporting the aims of
financial cheats. "Old-time" bankers were ALWAYS getting into trouble
(http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w...king.panics.us) when there
were few regulations and no bailouts. The reason is that they gambled with
other people's money and even though the odds were pretty good they often
lost. If the bank went under and depositers lost their money, the banker
still kept his, and he could always start a new bank. It was because
no-one
trusted banks anymore that stricter regulations were imposed and the FDIC
created.

Regulations are usually made in the aftermath of painful experience. If
you
do not know history, you will repeat it.
If you go along with the crowd and accept the conventional
explanations for events in history, then I suppose that ANY differing
view will be a dangerous revisionist one. *I like history and I ve
read unconventional views of events in history. *I like Murray
Rothbard s America s Great Depression. *It analyzes what went on and
why it was so severe and protracted. *It made sense to me and that s
all I care about. *(Many economist, like Ben Bernake, will now admit
to all the mistakes that were made by government, yet they stubbornly
persist trying to "fix" things.) *There are similar explanations
revolve around the other banking panics, but they don t fit with
mainstream thought. *George Santayana s quote is about remembering
history so we don t repeat it. *It s also important to understand why
and to be satisfied with the answer.

If you're reading Rothbard and Santayana and taking them to heart, I won't
try to disagree with you. Rothbard, the originator of "anarcho-capitalism"
and an acolyte of the Austrian School of economics, has created an entire
alternate economic reality. It also explains your take on ideology versus
pragmatism.

Just for the record, though, you've thrown your lot in with a real outlier
who is not taken seriously by many economists today. As he often admitted,
following in the footsteps of von Mises, his theories were "a priori"
theories that are really pure speculation, with no rigor and no necessary
connection to the world as it is. He prided himself in being
"non-empirical." In other words, like von Hayek and the other Austrian
School types, he basically blew it all out his butt in a fit of speculative
imagination. g

That's not to denigrate him as a powerful thinker and philosopher. It's just
that you'd might as well read a novel as to read Rothbard. It's the same
kind of insights and imagination.

I gave up on him at about the same time I gave up on the wit and wisdom of
Milton Friedman, when events proved that they were both off base. But
Friedman was a lot closer to reality than Rothbard. It's just that he didn't
see the train wrecks coming that upended some of his key ideas. Likewise,
Marx never anticipated progressivism, which short-circuited his speculation
about the historic inevitability of communism, and von Hayek never
anticipated social democracy, which short-circuited his speculation about
the historic inevitability of absolute central planning, as he described in
_The Road to Serfdom_.

Rothbard is a good read, though. I especially liked it when he turned on Ayn
Rand and called her a cultist. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I recently read Henry Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New' Economics:
An Analysis of Keynesian Fallacies.” Don’t you find it odd that
people who followed him were supporting the burning of crops during
the Great Depression to prop up prices? If that’s an example of your
scientific economics, there’s not much to recommend it. He has vague
pseudo-scientific theories and ill-defined constructs that have no
relationship to real economics. He emphasizes spending, and abhors
savings, etc. His policies are in large part the cause of the
financial mess we’re in. Sorry, but economics is not a science and is
not governed by mathematic principles (see Mises). People are not
atoms. Your side is wrong.

"Ignoramus13991" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-02, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus13991" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-02, Edward A. Falk wrote:
The public pays for the teachers' retirement fund only in the sense
that
the teachers are public employees and thus *all* their compensation
comes from public funds. Retirement plans, health care, vacation are
all part of their negotiated compensation.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01...e-big-wis.html

What's happening in Wisconsin is just good old-fashioned union-busting
on behalf of the Koch brothers.


It may also be a smokescreen and a diversion of public attention, away
from proposed selling of Wisconsin utility rights to the governor's
benefactors Koch Brothers.

This whole libertarian movement is truly deserving of the term
"libtard", and includes clueless underpaid idealists, led from behind
the curtains by the likes of Koch Brothers and other "moneyed
interests".

i

No. You don't say? You mean that middle-income folks who favor
eliminating
taxes on corporations, 15% income taxes on long-term investments, and
unregulated trading of unexplained derivatives have been hoodwinked? Say
it
ain't so! g


It would be too provocative to say what I really think about it.

Aw, c'mon. Provoke. Provoke. d8-)


A long time ago, when I was an MBA student at the University of
Chicago, I was offered internship at Koch Brothers. I declined because
I thought that it was a crazy corporation, based on the
interview. Also, the money the offered to pay me was really small, I
was kind of insulted. I did not know about them before that.

What I like about Warren Buffett, is that his ideology is not self
serving as far as becoming richer is concerned. He probably realizes
that it is better to be slightly less rich, but be in a better, more
stable society.

He could be a '50s style Republican. Like me. Only...he's rich. So he's not
like me at all.


I admire WEB since approximately 1995 or 1996 at the latest, and own
shares in Berkshire since approximately that time. Listening to him
kept me out of a lot of trouble.

i

He's the adult in the room.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-03-02, Ed Huntress wrote:
A long time ago, when I was an MBA student at the University of
Chicago, I was offered internship at Koch Brothers. I declined because
I thought that it was a crazy corporation, based on the
interview. Also, the money the offered to pay me was really small, I
was kind of insulted. I did not know about them before that.

What I like about Warren Buffett, is that his ideology is not self
serving as far as becoming richer is concerned. He probably realizes
that it is better to be slightly less rich, but be in a better, more
stable society.

He could be a '50s style Republican. Like me. Only...he's rich. So he's not
like me at all.


I admire WEB since approximately 1995 or 1996 at the latest, and own
shares in Berkshire since approximately that time. Listening to him
kept me out of a lot of trouble.

i

He's the adult in the room.


Read this article about the Koch Brothers.

I certainly do not want to be affiliated with anything where their
money goes.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 2:08 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Denis G." wrote in message

...
On Mar 2, 11:31 am, "anorton"
wrote:





"Denis G." wrote in message

...

(long exchange snipped)

Old-time bankers would never have let their money go
into such speculative devices that caused the recent financial
meltdown. Everyone was betting that the government would bail them
out and the government did. The problem isn't fixed and those in
government only call for more regulation.

(snip)

Denis,

This is exactly the sort of dangerous revisionist history that causes
well-meaning people such as you to be duped into supporting the aims of
financial cheats. "Old-time" bankers were ALWAYS getting into trouble
(http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w...king.panics.us) when there
were few regulations and no bailouts. The reason is that they gambled
with
other people's money and even though the odds were pretty good they
often
lost. If the bank went under and depositers lost their money, the banker
still kept his, and he could always start a new bank. It was because
no-one
trusted banks anymore that stricter regulations were imposed and the
FDIC
created.

Regulations are usually made in the aftermath of painful experience. If
you
do not know history, you will repeat it.
If you go along with the crowd and accept the conventional
explanations for events in history, then I suppose that ANY differing
view will be a dangerous revisionist one. I like history and I ve
read unconventional views of events in history. I like Murray
Rothbard s America s Great Depression. It analyzes what went on and
why it was so severe and protracted. It made sense to me and that s
all I care about. (Many economist, like Ben Bernake, will now admit
to all the mistakes that were made by government, yet they stubbornly
persist trying to "fix" things.) There are similar explanations
revolve around the other banking panics, but they don t fit with
mainstream thought. George Santayana s quote is about remembering
history so we don t repeat it. It s also important to understand why
and to be satisfied with the answer.

If you're reading Rothbard and Santayana and taking them to heart, I won't
try to disagree with you. Rothbard, the originator of "anarcho-capitalism"
and an acolyte of the Austrian School of economics, has created an entire
alternate economic reality. It also explains your take on ideology versus
pragmatism.

Just for the record, though, you've thrown your lot in with a real outlier
who is not taken seriously by many economists today. As he often admitted,
following in the footsteps of von Mises, his theories were "a priori"
theories that are really pure speculation, with no rigor and no necessary
connection to the world as it is. He prided himself in being
"non-empirical." In other words, like von Hayek and the other Austrian
School types, he basically blew it all out his butt in a fit of
speculative
imagination. g

That's not to denigrate him as a powerful thinker and philosopher. It's
just
that you'd might as well read a novel as to read Rothbard. It's the same
kind of insights and imagination.

I gave up on him at about the same time I gave up on the wit and wisdom of
Milton Friedman, when events proved that they were both off base. But
Friedman was a lot closer to reality than Rothbard. It's just that he
didn't
see the train wrecks coming that upended some of his key ideas. Likewise,
Marx never anticipated progressivism, which short-circuited his
speculation
about the historic inevitability of communism, and von Hayek never
anticipated social democracy, which short-circuited his speculation about
the historic inevitability of absolute central planning, as he described
in
_The Road to Serfdom_.

Rothbard is a good read, though. I especially liked it when he turned on
Ayn
Rand and called her a cultist. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I recently read Henry Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New' Economics:
An Analysis of Keynesian Fallacies.” Don’t you find it odd that
people who followed him were supporting the burning of crops during
the Great Depression to prop up prices?

Is that something like ****ing for chastity?

I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time. It cost more to harvest
crops than what you could get by selling them. What would you have done? You
wouldn't have given them away, like a damned socialist, would you?

If that’s an example of your
scientific economics, there’s not much to recommend it. He has vague
pseudo-scientific theories and ill-defined constructs that have no
relationship to real economics. He emphasizes spending, and abhors
savings, etc.

This is all nonsense. Apparently you haven't read Keynes, only *about*
Keynes, from your Austrian School acolytes, perhaps?

His policies are in large part the cause of the
financial mess we’re in. Sorry, but economics is not a science and is
not governed by mathematic principles (see Mises). People are not
atoms. Your side is wrong.

I'm not going to argue economics with you, Denis. Believe what you want. Von
Mises is like any other speculative philosopher. Arguing with his groupies
is like arguing about who is the best guitar player of all time.

--
Ed Huntress