zeke5123
2yr ago
Or you just build a new factory, hire people there, and then shut down the prior one…
zeke5123
2yr ago
Private property is natural — something that pretty much everyone naturally intuits and we still see in places with very weak governments. The question that arises is how best to protect property from asocial actors / clarify rights to enable change.
Government defense and clarification of property rights doesn’t mean the underlying property springs from the barrel of a gun. But it is a heavy kaldor hicks improvement.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I wonder if California is the biggest argument against open borders. My understanding (which is probably wrong) is that California until the early 90s was the beach boy California (hell Ronald Reagan was governor and easily won the state during elections) until a lot of migration changed it. That changed the voting dynamic leading to present day California.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It is a way to increase the aristocracy of pull. Why do they need to know who owns investment X? Well if we don’t like Y we can freeze that asset (as with what grossly happened with the oligarchs). It is an attack on private property.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Yep. Effectively guilds. There can be benefits. The problem arises when government puts a huge thumb on the scale.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I meant when the employee market is thin. The classic example is the company town where there is a single employer.
zeke5123
2yr ago
One could imagine in certain circumstances a non government backed union. But it would be very different.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Again, the sine qua non of anti competitive practices is creating a cartel. The government helps enforce one for labor. There just isn’t a comparison.
zeke5123
2yr ago
You seem ignorant of the massive government thumb on the scale for unions. Companies are forced to negotiate with a union. Can you think of any other situation where an unwilling party is forced to negotiate in “good faith” and can be heavily fined if the government determines otherwise? Hell, for a long time companies were forced to allow union organizers onto their property to agitate for unionization.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It is a government enforced quasi cartel. Cartels are the sine qua non of anti competitive behavior except for the labor carve out. It is really bad policy and we don’t need to resort to spherical cows.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Seems to me unions are more useful when labor market is thin. Modern economy means its relatively easy to get info about and apply for jobs outside of your local region making the pool of employers much larger.
You don’t even need that many people willing to move. Just enough people to create an equilibrium.
And note that non union car workers generally get paid pretty well. It’s also probably better for the individual worker who can be a bit more entrepreneurial since unions protect more the LCD.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It isn’t even just that (and enough) but effectively the union gets to vote (and fund) for who they negotiate with. And the person paying for the arrangement isn’t on either side of the table.
zeke5123
2yr ago
-
If there is a recording, that might solve 1.
-
If they can find more state department emails that Biden went rogue, that helps with 2.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It is clearly a bullshit argument because very often factually it is impossible to separate the appearance from the reality. So you must punish the appearance.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I am positive Kush is getting 2&20. 2% mgmt fee and then carry of 20%. So if he got 2b in funds mgmt fee would be 40m. The real money is in the carry but that requires doing successful deals.
zeke5123
2yr ago
That’s fair. Similar idea though that not all who push for a policy are pure as the driven snow.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I simply don’t believe that.
I think it’s politically effective if you can establish:
-
Burisma wanted Hunter to get Joe to fire Shokin.
-
Policy at the time was not to fire Shokin.
-
Joe went against policy and got Shokin fired.
-
Burisma paid Hunter millions of dollars for services rendered.
You don’t need a video recording. It is obvious to everyone if you can establish those facts exactly what happened.
Of course, you want an impossible standard of proof. That’s absurd.
zeke5123
2yr ago
No no it doesn’t. First we aren’t limited to the statute’s definition. But the statute even states it can be directly or indirectly. What does indirectly mean? Well presumably if Joe knows Burisma is going to pay Hunter a bunch of money if Joe can deliver getting Shokin fired and Joe contrary to policy gets Shokin fired that seems to fit indirectly.
zeke5123
2yr ago
- Your first mistake is using WaPo. That particular story has had to been corrected about a million times approximately. See https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/washington-post-quietly-updates-hunter-biden-story-after-devon-archer-testimony/
Contra your statement, Devon Archer testified Biden was there the entire dinner. The oligarch thanked Hunter for making the introduction afterwards. Archer could go to jail if proven to lie.
-
The IRS wanted to investigate why Valerie Biden — Joe’s sister — received what appears to be a large sum from Hunter.
-
No your standard is bullshit. The age of the allegation doesn’t matter. The only question is did participate in a bribery scheme. You can’t say the American people knew these facts and voted for it anyhow when (1) they didn’t know all of the facts and (2) the literal deep state colluded with Biden to unjustly and inaccurately label the info misinformation. If Joe participated in a bribery scheme, he cannot be president. This is basic stuff. Demanding absurd specifics (ie that Joe specifically directed money) is absurd. All that matters is that he knowingly participated.
zeke5123
2yr ago
That’s my point. Joe knew what Hunter was doing and that is the leverage Joe had over him.
zeke5123
2yr ago
That seems consistent with Joe changing policy instead of the other way around.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I would add perfectly fair to ask for a source. As I admitted below, one particular part of the story my memory played tricks on me. I post from my phone so hard to do a long comment c/p sources but if asked I will find.
At the same time, I am equally annoyed when people claim there is no evidence when they appear unwilling to have looked for the evidence. You can’t just say “cite please” so there is an advantage there.
Happy to find cites for whatever other questions you have. Note I provided a cite for the above statement in a separate message.
They are of a different kind. Basic market rules (eg secure property rights, ability to sue for breach of contract) are like rules of the road. They are indifferent to where people are going but regulate activity wherever you are going. The rules for unions are more like road rules that tell you where you have to go. Yes both are rules but are of a different kind.
More options
Context Copy link