tysker said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Unions are not necessarily against the free market. Workers banding together and refusing to work is no different than consumers banding together to boycott a product. Where unions go against the free market is when laws are made to require businesses to use them, or require employees to be a part of them. If an employee is free to leave a union at anyone and still work, you would see a lot less corruption in unions. Or if a business could by pass union for labor. If all your workers just decide your a ****ty boss and refuse to with for you, that's the free market.

---

Unions are absolutely against the free market. Workers banding together and refusing to work is anti-free market just like boycotting a product for non-economic reasons is (usually in response to anti-free market activity by the firm).

And the fact that we even have a NLRB is a travesty and about as anti-free market as it gets.

---

I think yo'll find most Economists disagree with you here. Labor unions can make sense in a variety of circumstances and can benefit both business and industry. Unions however carry a heavy political weight which entice politicians and government officials to govern and police in ways that have negative consequences for non-union workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Crony capitalism and especially regulatory capture, works for unions too, and the politicians get to play both sides.

Its not the unions or management themselves that are anti-free market, its the government stepping into labor contracts between consenting adults.

---

Economists who disagree are also the type of economists who thought inflation was "transitory" and that printing a ton of money to "stimulate" the economy is a good idea. They have simply proven to have no idea what they are doing. Labor unions make ZERO economic sense. They consist of fools making selfish decisions that not only hurt others, but hurt themselves in the long run.

I do agree about government stepping in. If it wasn't for them, then unions would have dwindled to nearly nothing by now. Many of their employers would have gone bankrupt and union contracts voided so that new management could buy the assets and turn them into viable businesses again.

I have never really been pro-union. But atm's incessant arguing is so GD relentless, infuriating, and annoying that I find myself rooting for unions now.

Quote:

---

Economists who disagree are also the type of economists who thought inflation was "transitory" and that printing a ton of money to "stimulate" the economy is a good idea. They have simply proven to have no idea what they are doing. Labor unions make ZERO economic sense. They consist of fools making selfish decisions that not only hurt others, but hurt themselves in the long run.

---

You're first sentence is so tainted and outlandishly inaccurate it delegitimizes everything that comes after.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Economists who disagree are also the type of economists who thought inflation was "transitory" and that printing a ton of money to "stimulate" the economy is a good idea. They have simply proven to have no idea what they are doing. Labor unions make ZERO economic sense. They consist of fools making selfish decisions that not only hurt others, but hurt themselves in the long run.

---

You're first sentence is so tainted and outlandishly inaccurate it delegitimizes everything that comes after.

---

Like hell it is. Just look at Keynesian idiots who have been running the Fed. These morons said for months that inflation was "transitory" until it went so long that they had to "retire" the word. Jerome Powell has gained enough appreciation of the Biden administration through his pro-union "outreach", that he was reappointed.

Keynesians simply have no clue what they are doing.

I assume TCTTS finally caught a ban? Can't figure out why else he isn't posting updates with this strike almost over.

It's been the most peaceful week ever on this board.

aTmAg said:

---

It's been the most peaceful week ever on this board.

---

That's rich coming from you

Charpie said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's been the most peaceful week ever on this board.

---

That's rich coming from you

---

Well, it takes two to tango and the anti free-market socialists are in full swing on this board. It's like watching an action flick without all the blood! Well, maybe a little...

Sea Speed said:

---

chap said:

---

I assume TCTTS finally caught a ban? Can't figure out why else he isn't posting updates with this strike almost over.

---

Yep, but I didn't see the post. Did anyone see what it was?

---

On the Russell Brand thread but was deleted before I saw it.

aTmAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Economists who disagree are also the type of economists who thought inflation was "transitory" and that printing a ton of money to "stimulate" the economy is a good idea. They have simply proven to have no idea what they are doing. Labor unions make ZERO economic sense. They consist of fools making selfish decisions that not only hurt others, but hurt themselves in the long run.

---

You're first sentence is so tainted and outlandishly inaccurate it delegitimizes everything that comes after.

---

Like hell it is. Just look at Keynesian idiots who have been running the Fed. These morons said for months that inflation was "transitory" until it went so long that they had to "retire" the word. Jerome Powell has gained enough appreciation of the Biden administration through his pro-union "outreach", that he was reappointed.

Keynesians simply have no clue what they are doing.

---

My man your conflating issues and principles. You may think you're the LeBron of economic thinking but for those in the know, you clearly haven't read past the first page. I suggest you shut up and dribble for little while.

You can be directionally correct about your macroeconomic thesis regarding Keynesianism and also inaccurate when objecting to the idea that Economists who advocate for free market, to the point of being anarcho-capitalists, disagree with your sentiment that "Unions are absolutely against the free market." Unions are no different, in form or function, than a corporation (or other similar assembly of persons). It isn't the union body itself that cause the greatest distortion to the labor market, it's the response to unions by government and politicians. Unions can be perform well for its members over the short run and even medium run (just like any business) but they often become unsustainable, unsurprisingly, for similar reasons to the flaws in Keynesianism - non-robust and inflexible pricing systems are susceptible to substitutes, technological advancements, and adverse effects which render the good or service noncompetitive.

tysker said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Unions are not necessarily against the free market. Workers banding together and refusing to work is no different than consumers banding together to boycott a product. Where unions go against the free market is when laws are made to require businesses to use them, or require employees to be a part of them. If an employee is free to leave a union at anyone and still work, you would see a lot less corruption in unions. Or if a business could by pass union for labor. If all your workers just decide your a ****ty boss and refuse to with for you, that's the free market.

---

Unions are absolutely against the free market. Workers banding together and refusing to work is anti-free market just like boycotting a product for non-economic reasons is (usually in response to anti-free market activity by the firm).

And the fact that we even have a NLRB is a travesty and about as anti-free market as it gets.

---

I think yo'll find most Economists disagree with you here. Labor unions can make sense in a variety of circumstances and can benefit both business and industry. Unions however carry a heavy political weight which entice politicians and government officials to govern and police in ways that have negative consequences for non-union workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Crony capitalism and especially regulatory capture, works for unions too, and the politicians get to play both sides.

Its not the unions or management themselves that are anti-free market, its the government stepping into labor contracts between consenting adults.

---

Unions as they exist today in multiple industries are anti-free market. One group is dictating the price of a service (in this case scripts) for an entire industry. If this was not a union it would be called a monopoly.

I saw it. He said he was basically sad and disgusted for atmAg's daughters to have such a dad. About as personal as it gets when it comes to violating the personal attack policy

Everybody knows that the brightest and sharpest economic minds come to message boards about movies and TV on college football websites to hone their craft.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I saw it. He said he was basically sad and disgusted for atmAg's daughters to have such a dad. About as personal as it gets when it comes to violating the personal attack policy

---

While at the same time lamenting how much 'hate' is on this board, I'm sure.

AustinScubaAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Unions are not necessarily against the free market. Workers banding together and refusing to work is no different than consumers banding together to boycott a product. Where unions go against the free market is when laws are made to require businesses to use them, or require employees to be a part of them. If an employee is free to leave a union at anyone and still work, you would see a lot less corruption in unions. Or if a business could by pass union for labor. If all your workers just decide your a ****ty boss and refuse to with for you, that's the free market.

---

Unions are absolutely against the free market. Workers banding together and refusing to work is anti-free market just like boycotting a product for non-economic reasons is (usually in response to anti-free market activity by the firm).

And the fact that we even have a NLRB is a travesty and about as anti-free market as it gets.

---

I think yo'll find most Economists disagree with you here. Labor unions can make sense in a variety of circumstances and can benefit both business and industry. Unions however carry a heavy political weight which entice politicians and government officials to govern and police in ways that have negative consequences for non-union workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Crony capitalism and especially regulatory capture, works for unions too, and the politicians get to play both sides.

Its not the unions or management themselves that are anti-free market, its the government stepping into labor contracts between consenting adults.

---

Unions as they exist today in multiple industries are anti-free market. One group is dictating the price of a service (in this case scripts) for an entire industry. If this was not a union it would be called a monopoly.

---

Do you guys go this hard for occupational licensing?
Hollywood and studios are not under any obligation to use/purchase such services, unless they choose to. If I'm not mistaken, over the last couple of decades studios have been more interested in buying IP, not scripts. They buy the IP and then develop the scripts using known talent. I mentioned earlier in the thread that it was the strike in 88 that lead to the spec script boom of the 90s and 00s. Studios responded to the strike and the unions found themselves behind the times and had to catch up by installing arbitrary price floors.

aTmAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Economists who disagree are also the type of economists who thought inflation was "transitory" and that printing a ton of money to "stimulate" the economy is a good idea. They have simply proven to have no idea what they are doing. Labor unions make ZERO economic sense. They consist of fools making selfish decisions that not only hurt others, but hurt themselves in the long run.

---

You're first sentence is so tainted and outlandishly inaccurate it delegitimizes everything that comes after.

---

Like hell it is. Just look at Keynesian idiots who have been running the Fed. These morons said for months that inflation was "transitory" until it went so long that they had to "retire" the word. Jerome Powell has gained enough appreciation of the Biden administration through his pro-union "outreach", that he was reappointed.

Keynesians simply have no clue what they are doing.

---

My man your conflating issues and principles. You may think you're the LeBron of economic thinking but for those in the know, you clearly haven't read past the first page. I suggest you shut up and dribble for little while.

You can be directionally correct about your macroeconomic thesis regarding Keynesianism and also inaccurate when objecting to the idea that Economists who advocate for free market, to the point of being anarcho-capitalists, disagree with your sentiment that "Unions are absolutely against the free market." Unions are no different, in form or function, than a corporation (or other similar assembly of persons). It isn't the union body itself that cause the greatest distortion to the labor market, it's the response to unions by government and politicians. Unions can be perform well for its members over the short run and even medium run (just like any business) but they often become unsustainable, unsurprisingly, for similar reasons to the flaws in Keynesianism - non-robust and inflexible pricing systems are susceptible to substitutes, technological advancements, and adverse effects which render the good or service noncompetitive.

---

LOL.. compared to this board, I'm the MJ of economics.

I got a meeting, but I suggest you look up "union + deadweight loss". The notion that unions provide any benefit to society is flat out wrong. They are nothing like corporations.

---

"The notion that unions provide any benefit to society is flat out wrong..." You got that from Vickers, Work in Essex County, Page 98, right? Yeah I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? You have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or is that your thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage and then you pretend. You pawn it off as your own. Your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

See the sad thing about a guy like you is in about 50 years you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fin' education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.

Did you just quote Good Will Hunting?

Flawless

All it took was for TC to take a ban. Team player

Rough day for union-haters.

Now that the strikes are seemingly coming to an end, it'll be nice to see the Pro-Studio Head chatters go back to calling them satanic, baby-eating elitists who are ruining Hollywood because they made a 7/10 woman a lead in ac tion movie