Just joined!!!

[editec]

The video you posted is blocked in the US by EMI because of copyright laws.

I don't know the song. Can you help with the message you are trying to get out?

Immie

Damn, sorry about that. Well the song warns about the right wing values, what they are about and what do they lead to. Without the poor there cannot be the rich. Fundamentally right wing values are about exploitation of the weak. As you can see, the corporate goon is displaying family values in the pic by holding the baby while the american flag is burning - symbolizing how the people are being exploited by the rich "elite" while keeping a respectable front to fool the masses.

I chose this picture as I was listening the Walker/Koch prank call is disgust. I firmly believe that labor unions are for the good of all and Walkers attempt to destroy them was apalling.

so the only jobs in finland is printing money.

HEY!

Finnland is the ONLY nation on earth that repaid its WWI war debts. Willow.

And they did THAT shortly after dealing with a terrible civil war, too.

A little respect for our Finn posters is in order if you are a patriotic American who has a CLUE about history.

 

[Immanuel]

Do I sense a belief in the free market in this passage?

I mean basically that is what you are describing.

I don't believe free market is self balancing. Take the latest bank crisis as an example.
There was no indication that the markets tried to balance itself, bankers were just "clicking their profit buttons" repeatedly until the bubble burst. Nature of the problem is that ramifications of actions can be delayed, stored into these "bubbles" until the whole system comes down crashing.

Oh, Oh, Now I am being put on the spot to describe the nature of corruption. I guess I have to put up or shut up. I think the nature of it is the same as for politicians and Corporate Management. They have power and they means to wield that power. Every man has his price and the union "boss" is no different. There is power in the union. They collect union dues and that can be a lot of money. With that they can hire lobbyists and influence politicians. The more power they have the more likely they are to succumb.



Can a dictator ever be elected out of office? How about Saddam Hussein? Egypt's Mubarak? Libya's Qaddafi? Technically I suppose it might be possible to remove a union boss from office, but when a person has that kind of power and money backing him or her, the chances of that actually happening seem to be very very remote.

But they are not dictators but democratically elected representatives. It is true that even in here, Central labor union bosses aren't really selected democratically, but by a committee of representatives from labor unions governments, thus creating a ripe field for corruption - as the power at that level is within relatively small groups.
We are demanding (well at least some of us leftists here) that at all levels within labor union organizations should be truly democratically elected by us members (all people) as it would get rid of the chance of corruption at the highest level. (I hope I made some sense, my English is failing here)

Can you reduce the problem with unions to it's core? (leaders cannot be elected out, Union leaders being bribed by the corporates etc...)

I don't think it is so much the idea that leaders are bribed by the corporations so much as that they sell out the workers, if that makes any sense.

My understanding in reference to the Wisconsin Teacher's Union is that the union has already sold the teachers out. They have given up on their demands for pay increases and all their other demands. The only thing they are holding out for is the future right to bargain collectively. Sounds like a sell out to me.

To me it sounds like the self balancing is in action. Without knowing much about the situation in WI, I'm left with an impression that labor unions have understood that at these times workers simply cannot demand more as the state is in deep debt? To secure jobs they are ready to take one for the team. Why the collective bargaining right is being threatened? What is so damaging about that when it is clear that labor unions are willing to back down when they are presented with facts of the situation? This is something I cannot understand, to me it is a clear attempt to weaken the future bargaining rights of the workforce without any good reason.

Long post so I will do my best to answer what I can here.

First, what happened with the housing and financial crises of the U.S. was, in fact, related to the free market. I'm not entirely certain that I can explain it because 1) I don't know all the events that lead to it and 2) there are so many variables that brought it about but the gist of it is that our government made it very lucrative for the banks to lend money to anyone and everyone that "wanted" to buy a home, after all owning a home is "the American dream". So, because the government gave incentives to the banks (one of those I believe was that they guaranteed many of the loans even for people that could not afford to pay the mortgage) it meant that the banks were going to make money one way or another. The reason for the existence of a bank is to make money. They don't care where that money comes from, they just want to make it.

Well, I suspect you can guess where that lead this country. Eventually, when the economy collapsed people started defaulting on their mortgages and the banks began foreclosing on property. This brought the value of all homes plummeting and... well, now we are trying to recover from the very large problem of the U.S. Government having messed with the free market. You see, if the government had stayed out of it, the banks would not have lent out so much money to people that should not have been lent the money in the first place. If that had not happened, we would not have been hit with the collapse of the housing market and we would not be in the place we are today.

That is a thumbnail sketch of what happened here from the point of view of a layman.

Next section are union "bosses" dictators? Well, many dictators are "democratically" elected. They hold elections every so often. They just don't allow anyone else to run. The people that run the unions here in America, the big unions that is, are pretty much the same way AND it is not just one person but a "conglomerate" of people in each union. So, when one person leaves another who has already been indoctrinated into the corruption of the "family" (alluding to organized crime there ) fills his/her shoes and someone else is brought into the family to learn the ropes.

It is a never ending circle of "family".

We are demanding (well at least some of us leftists here) that at all levels within labor union organizations should be truly democratically elected by us members (all people) as it would get rid of the chance of corruption at the highest level.

I have to say that I really like this statement. You see, I have come to the conclusion that the people in the parties of American politics (Democrats and Republicans) are pretty much power hungry corrupt individuals. They don't start out in politics that way. Most expect to do good for America when they enter the field, but by the time they reach the level of national prominence they have been bought and sold so often that escape from the "system" is impossible. Regardless, of who we elect, we elect a person who is owned by someone else or many others and those others have a lot of money, power and just plain greed!

This is what I believe: anyone who wants the job of President of the United States of America should be automatically disqualified from the position.

On to the Wisconsin Teacher's Union Sellout.

You said:

I'm left with an impression that labor unions have understood that at these times workers simply cannot demand more as the state is in deep debt? To secure jobs they are ready to take one for the team.

The way I see it is that the teachers didn't get what they wanted, because the state was not backing down and the union could see that from the get go, and in fact, the teachers have suffered by being out of work for so long, I am not sure it they are being paid for this time off or not, but, by god! they will be more than thrilled to send their union dues to the bosses because those guys fought so hard for the teachers. Haha! Yeah right! Who are the only winners in this game? Here is a hint, it is not the teachers, it is not the state, it is not the taxpayers and it sure as heck is not the children of the state of Wisconsin. That only leaves one party to this whole affair.

I think I covered most of your points here and trust me, I am only giving an outsider's point of view here.

Immie