Author Topic: Umbrella man of Minneapolis  (Read 23826 times)

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #400 on: June 09, 2020, 11:09:46 AM »
Then it's a purely abstract concept that I have no real interest in discussing.  To me, it's much more useful to use the definition of 'free market' that people are actually trying to implement in the real world . . . which matches up with the definition I used.  But each to his own.

Does true participatory "democracy" exist?

Are you interested in discussing how to make democracy better, in small ways everyday, perhaps?

e.g. if you choose to vote, your democracy is a bit more participatory and a bit better. If not, then a little worse.

"Perfect" anything is a platonic concept that does not exist in the real world! They do, however, serve a useful purpose as a goal.

Just because the long-standing definition of "Free Market" is platonic in nature does not mean we have to subscribe a new, partisan one that jettisons the welfare of the people bit.

I think I know you don't consider "people's welfare" to be a not "useful" topic for discussion. I am just trying to point out the rhetorical devices employed by the followers of a certain ideology. I don't think we can fix the present day issues without challenging the ideological linguistics.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 11:30:23 AM by ctuser1 »

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #401 on: June 09, 2020, 12:42:47 PM »
1 - If and when the unions are able to reduce the role of that vulnerability in the negotiations - would you agree that makes the market "free"er and more efficient?


2 - Job security for factors other than market forces are "harmful" for the efficiency of the markets. I think this is where unions err in the present day.

1 - No, because it required government intervention (Wagner Act aka NLRA in the US) to empower unions which employers might otherwise refuse to allow in a true free market environment. As GuitarStv pointed out, you are conflating the notion of freedom as human flourishing with the notion of freedom as market subject only to the laws of supply and demand.  And the goal of a union involves making the market less efficient, as an efficient market accurately prices labor in real time and a union is meant to keep salaries from dipping below certain thresholds - even if the market ultimately won't support it in the long run. Thus many automakers closed down as their profits were not stable enough to continue meeting union demands.

2 - Yes, but given that we accept that unions make the market less efficient in order to make it more humane, I don't think this is really where you believe that unions err in the present day. Otherwise you would believe that job security for non-market forces like pregnancy and illness would be erroneous as well, and I don't think you're a heartless libertarian like me :)

So perhaps you believe that police unions err not because they reduce the efficiency of the market, but because they actually result in less humane outcomes rather than more humane ones.

If you allow for "my definition" of free market, then I would contest this statement "to empower unions which employers might otherwise refuse to allow in a true free market environment". The market where the employer can do this, is one where the employer has a monopsony, if not a monopoly in the labor market. To me "monopoly"/"monopsony" != free market.

You are right that government mandate does deviate from ("my definition of") free market, but so does employer monopsony/monopoly power in the labor market. Assuming we could quantify the two, if the deviation caused by the government mandate is less than the monopoly/monopsony power of employers - then unions cause the market to be "free'er and more efficient".


>> Yes, but given that we accept that unions make the market less efficient in order to make it more humane
This part is correct. I would argue, however, all these basic worker rights stuff (8-hour day etc) were all last century stuff. Once they became the norm, and codified in law and culture - unions have no further role in this in today's world.
There is also a large non-discrimination component to what you said. I would argue that is from civil rights and is not attributable to unions.

My personal dislike for unions is purely personal. I would not like to work in a union shop because I have worked with some organizations that are unionized and I did not like the culture there. They, in my opinion, err when they impact economic efficiency by negatively impacting the company culture beyond just doing collective bargaining about the appropriate level of compensation and benefits.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 12:49:39 PM by ctuser1 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23130
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #402 on: June 09, 2020, 12:45:10 PM »
Does true participatory "democracy" exist?

Are you interested in discussing how to make democracy better, in small ways everyday, perhaps?

e.g. if you choose to vote, your democracy is a bit more participatory and a bit better. If not, then a little worse.

Sure.  But there's a fundamental difference.  Democracies exist, and dozens (if not hundreds) of examples can easily be pointed to.  The ideal of a democracy can be met with no internal conflicts.

The definition of 'free market' that you're using cannot exist.  It's not possible for a market to be both completely free from interference for buyers/sellers and free from all forms of economic privilege/monopoly/artificial scarcity.

Example:
We have a free market.  I buy up all the potatoes in all the stores in my country.

If the government steps in to prevent this, we no longer have a free market because I'm not free to buy potatoes.  If they don't, we have artificial scarcity of potatoes.

It's possible to optimize for a free market, or it's possible to prevent artificial scarcity.  It's not possible to have both simultaneously.  Because the internal tenants of the idea you're proposing are opposed to each other, there's not only no way to ever follow the 'free market' doctine . . . but it's not even possible to use it as a goal to work towards - because some people will work towards opening up the market to everyone, and some people will work towards closing it down to prevent artificial scarcity.


"Perfect" anything is a platonic concept that does not exist in the real world! They do, however, serve a useful purpose as a goal.

Just because the long-standing definition of "Free Market" is platonic in nature does not mean we have to subscribe a new, partisan one that jettisons the welfare of the people bit.

I think I know you don't consider "people's welfare" to be a not "useful" topic for discussion. I am just trying to point out the rhetorical devices employed by the followers of a certain ideology. I don't think we can fix the present day issues without challenging the ideological linguistics.

Welfare of the people is fundamentally opposed to the operation of a free market.

Example:
If you have a truly free market, I should be free to buy slaves if I want.  If I'm prevented from doing this by an external force, then you don't have a free market - it's limited and controlled.



You appear to want to have your cake and eat it too.  :P

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1531
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #403 on: June 09, 2020, 01:10:58 PM »
My personal dislike for unions is purely personal. I would not like to work in a union shop because I have worked with some organizations that are unionized and I did not like the culture there. They, in my opinion, err when they impact economic efficiency by negatively impacting the company culture beyond just doing collective bargaining about the appropriate level of compensation and benefits.

I don't like them either - I think they are economic waste, often doing little more than sucking money out of employees' paychecks and occasionally foolishly negotiating themselves out of existence, when the business could have otherwise reduced pay/benefits 10 or 15% and weathered the storm for another decade. And they frequently enable a culture of mediocrity. I guess the union dues pay for a little bit of earned loafing.

They are the product of a lack of trust and goodwill between parties. Union employees are able to see just how expensive a lack of trust and goodwill is every paycheck they get. But they support the union because the union has convinced them the employer would completely take advantage of them at the first opportunity they got.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #404 on: June 09, 2020, 01:11:08 PM »
The definition of 'free market' that you're using cannot exist.  It's not possible for a market to be both completely free from interference for buyers/sellers and free from all forms of economic privilege/monopoly/artificial scarcity.

It sure can.

Consider my own decision on whether to DIY my deck gate or farm it out to a handyman. The decision comes down to about $500 difference in cost on one side, additional tools and skills I will gain on the other side. I don't see any economic-priviledge/monopoly or artificial scarcity. I don't see why it is not an ideal free market when you keep it small - to a single participant in this specific case.

In any non-trivial, macro market, I'd agree with you because then I will need to take into account the handyman's earnings, his bargaining position over mine etc. and we can't really have a true free market. In fact, as soon as you have two participants - we move away from the ideal.

We have a free market.  I buy up all the potatoes in all the stores in my country.
Then you have monopoly. This == big deviation from free market in my definition.

If the government steps in to prevent this, we no longer have a free market because I'm not free to buy potatoes.  If they don't, we have artificial scarcity of potatoes.
The confusion only exists if you consider "free market" a black and white, binary construct. How about: ideal free market never exists, but different actions impact it towards or away from it. Government action is a negative impact on free markets, but then eliminating monopoly is positive. So, government action may, in the end, be a net positive for free market.

It's possible to optimize for a free market, or it's possible to prevent artificial scarcity.  It's not possible to have both simultaneously.
Very true for any non-trivial market.
And yet no excuse to subscribe to a over-simplified partisan definition of free markets.

If you have a truly free market, I should be free to buy slaves if I want.  If I'm prevented from doing this by an external force, then you don't have a free market - it's limited and controlled.

1. We've already established you can (almost?) never have a truly free market in any non-trivial, multi-actor market.
2. You only need to quantify weigh "your control over the slaves" vs. the "government control over you to not have slaves". Pick the one that makes for the "free'est" market for ALL the market participants - slaves included.



It is all rhetoric at the end of the day. Economists don't use the construct of "free market" in their papers - because it is a confusing one. They use mathematical constructs like Pareto Efficiency, Gini Coefficient etc. [I'm no PhD in Econ. So point out contrary data if you know any and I will correct my position.] So this confusion does not arise in serious literature to this extent. The issue came only in how laypeople translated those esoteric models into common rhetoric.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 01:18:49 PM by ctuser1 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23130
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #405 on: June 09, 2020, 01:16:49 PM »
OK.  It sounds like we're largely in agreement then, just using different terms.  Your idealized free-market is what I'd describe as a well-regulated market.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #406 on: June 09, 2020, 01:20:28 PM »
OK.  It sounds like we're largely in agreement then, just using different terms.  Your idealized free-market is what I'd describe as a well-regulated market.

Eh. It is not "my" idealized free-market!

Most economists, when writing for popular literature, would use these definitions of free market, before the Kaynesian model got discredited in the 70's due to the stagflation in large parts of the world.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #407 on: June 09, 2020, 04:31:07 PM »
A nice synopsis of the last week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2002&v=Wf4cea5oObY&feature=emb_logo

this appears to be a rolling link, it took me first to an older John Oliver show about Jared and Ivanka (pretty good, actually). 
But I guessed that you meant to link to his June 7, 2020 show "Police:  Last Week Tonight with John Oliver."  He devoted the entire 30 minute show to this one topic.  Very powerful, should be seen by every American.
No more excuses, enough is enough.

My intent was to link the Police segment. I swear that's what i was watching when I copied it. I'll try to update the link when I get home from work.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #408 on: June 09, 2020, 04:37:35 PM »
Wow,  lot of good discussion on unions. I'm glad that they're not as popular as I thought. I think they're certainly benefits to them,  but huge drawbacks and inefficiencies as well.  Also of course eliminating police unions wouldn't fix the problem. However, it's not just one or a couple unions.  They always seem to defend bad guys as a default. They slow the process up,  obstruct at every turn. If they're there they make prosecuting bad cops harder,  and without punishment for bad cops it's very unlikely the system will improve...

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #409 on: June 09, 2020, 05:49:56 PM »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #410 on: June 09, 2020, 06:27:00 PM »
Quote from: LennStar link=topic=116459
From my experience there is exactly one thing and only one when unions do bad: When they try to "secure jobs" through political pressure (not against the employer but politicians).

Couldn't let this one alone lol. If this is the only issue in your experience with unions,  you must not have much experience in manufacturing plant unions where it's like working in quicksand everything is so slow,  inefficient, ridiculous rules on who can do what slowing everything up,  etc. Dunno if all unions are like this,  but politically forced appointments is certainly not the only problem within unions.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #411 on: June 09, 2020, 06:46:15 PM »
Quote from: LennStar link=topic=116459
From my experience there is exactly one thing and only one when unions do bad: When they try to "secure jobs" through political pressure (not against the employer but politicians).

Couldn't let this one alone lol. If this is the only issue in your experience with unions,  you must not have much experience in manufacturing plant unions where it's like working in quicksand everything is so slow,  inefficient, ridiculous rules on who can do what slowing everything up,  etc. Dunno if all unions are like this,  but politically forced appointments is certainly not the only problem within unions.

LennStar is in Germany (if I remember correctly). The entire culture is different there - based on fleeting experience working with Germans.

If I was to wildly speculate:
Unions are represented on the board there. So they will likely operate more like the "owners" than "workers". Also, the inequality is much less than in the US, and the social safety stronger, so the unions/workers will likely not have as toxic relationship with the management as they do here.

Some of attributes of American unions are a product of some uniquely American things. Unions outside will act differently, better in ways, worse in others.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 06:52:21 PM by ctuser1 »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #412 on: June 09, 2020, 11:18:12 PM »
Quote
Do you consider Adam Smith to be an authority on what defines economics?
Not today, and he shouldn't. He made a lot of errors and sometimes even "errors". But he is still important to know if you want to know why today is as it is.

I was using that as a rhetorical device.

Kaynes would have a similar interpretation of what "free market" means.

Right now, there is an exclusive focus on one specific right-wing definition of what "free market" means. It's almost as if most people are completely unable to see that other (I'd argue much more valid and mainstream) definitions exist.

They are. I mean as in really. They don't have the concept needed. There was even a study about it I think. It is like those people who's language does not have a name for color X and such they are unable to see it.

You may be interested in Silke Helfrich books about commons. You can get two big ones free as pdf but it seems the english website is down atm.
https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-3245-3/die-welt-der-commons/?number=978-3-8394-3245-7
https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-2835-7/commons/?number=978-3-8394-2835-1

I don't like them either - I think they are economic waste, often doing little more than sucking money out of employees' paychecks and occasionally foolishly negotiating themselves out of existence, when the business could have otherwise reduced pay/benefits 10 or 15% and weathered the storm for another decade. And they frequently enable a culture of mediocrity. I guess the union dues pay for a little bit of earned loafing.

Putting aside that this has nothing to do with a free market (I mean cutting pay), this would be bad.
Instead that company should vanish and leave the business for the company that did not need to do that because it was better, right?

Quote
Then you have monopoly. This == big deviation from free market in my definition.
Then your definition is really strange because that is the fundamental part of a Free Market. It is the logical, mathematically proven (for a really idealized type) end of that type of economy.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 11:47:34 PM by LennStar »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #413 on: June 09, 2020, 11:46:21 PM »

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #414 on: June 10, 2020, 05:30:22 AM »
Quote
Then you have monopoly. This == big deviation from free market in my definition.
Then your definition is really strange because that is the fundamental part of a Free Market. It is the logical, mathematically proven (for a really idealized type) end of that type of economy.

The term "Free Market" is a laypeople term, abused pretty frequently, as I indicated above.

Monopoly can not be Pareto Efficient:
https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne/2x3/tutorial/MON.HTM

Quote
It follows that a monopoly equilibrium is not Pareto efficient: someone can be made better off without making anyone worse off.

Would you include Pareto Efficiency in your definition of free market? Most conservatives won't (while turning around and associating terms like "win win" with their form of capitalism). In their definition of a "free market" - the slave trading market would end up being allowed in a free market - which is a bloody shame.

The first welfare theorem is often associated very strongly with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (i.e. the very words that defined markets).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics

This would consider Pareto Efficiency as a general goal of free markets!!


Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 22322
  • Age: 66
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #416 on: July 28, 2020, 11:01:08 PM »
Umbrella man is a member of the Hell’s Angels who went to the protest to invite racial tensions.
Wow! During the first wave of protests which "somehow" devolved into looting and riots, persons unknown had pallets of bricks dropped off at several places around town, close to where the rallies were planned. It happened in more than one city in our general area. Last week, my walking partner and I discovered most of a pallet of bricks tucked into a corner of a public transit parking garage*. We reported it, but I don't know if anything was done about it yet. Next time we walk that way, we'll have to see if it's still there.

*Turns out, these transit garages are lovely places to walk during a pandemic, because no one's using them. They're clean, empty, have a gradual incline and have nice views at the top. No other walkers, hikers, bikers, joggers, strollers, bikes, trikes, skateboards, dogs on or off leash, idiots without masks, etc. Very odd place to find a pallet of bricks that match nothing in the vicinity and there is no construction going on, but good places to walk in isolation.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 06:45:36 AM by Dicey »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #417 on: July 29, 2020, 04:16:41 AM »
Umbrella man is a member of the Hell’s Angels who went to the protest to invite racial tensions.
I am surprised how unsurprised I am.
Wait, didn't I say exactly that as the most logical thing from his behavior? *scratches head*

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #418 on: July 30, 2020, 12:03:41 PM »
I couldn't get past the paywall, but I found this article:
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/28/896515022/minneapolis-police-reportedly-identify-viral-umbrella-man-as-white-supremacist

Quote
According to Minnesota Public Radio, community members have long suspected that outside extremists were trying to inflame tensions at demonstrations against racism and police brutality in the wake of Floyd's death, with some Twin Cities residents reporting seeing "white supremacist and other far-right imagery on vehicles that came into their neighborhoods during the protests."

While the man's face was obscured by a gas mask in the video, Christensen reportedly wrote in the affidavit that his height lines up with the video, and noted a "striking resemblance in the eye, nose bridge and brow area."

Multiple news outlets report that police also linked the man to an incident that took place in Stillwater, Minn., in June, when a group of men wearing white supremacist garb allegedly harassed a Muslim woman who was at a malt shop with her 4-year-old daughter.

The reports also say police link "Umbrella Man" and the Stillwater incident with the Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood, a small white supremacist prison and street gang primarily based in Minnesota and Kentucky.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: Umbrella man of Minneapolis
« Reply #419 on: October 23, 2020, 12:24:07 PM »
Right wing terrorists killed police and burned police stations, and BLM was blamed!
"Charges: Boogaloo Bois fired on Minneapolis police precinct, shouted 'Justice for Floyd'

Feds say Ivan Harrison Hunter helped burn and loot the Third Precinct building as part of a coordinated attack from the far-right group trying to ignite an American civil war. "

https://www.startribune.com/charges-boogaloo-bois-fired-on-mpls-precinct-shouted-justice-for-floyd/572843802/