Hoblit wrote:Supply and demand works until somebody gets too much power. Then demand becomes embezzlement. Of course, as liberals??? does this only occur when OIL is the subject?
Well first a semantic point: of embezzlement, blackmail, and extortion, the most accurate claim you could've made would be extortion. Embezzlement and blackmail are completely unrelated (embezzlement being a misappropriation of money already entrusted to a person or entity, and blackmail being a specific case of extortion using the threat of negative information).
Second, labor strikes do not follow the law of supply and demand for the main reason that labor unions have a virtual monopoly on labor and can choose to strike at any point. Therefore the supply of skilled labor carries artificial restrictions that those in demand must accept or reject. In a vacuum this dynamic would give unions almost unlimited power. Call it extortion or civil disobedience or call it the basic human drive to get the most we can get, it doesn't change the fact that this is the way the game is played. All I'm trying to do is get people to look at this from a basic game theory view of things.
If you disagree with striking on the basis of the fact that it can disable a city you have to find ways to change the rules of the game. One can legislate methods of altering this playing field, as was already on the books in NY - these guys are getting fined $1,000,000 a day for striking because they're breaking the law. My understanding is that it is illegal for government employees to go on strike. I think that in itself will hasten the demise of any unworthy gripe (and perhaps some worthy ones in the course of history), and this fine alone tells me that they're not nearly powerful enough to hold the city hostage, merely cause it some hiccups in the grand scheme.
Thirdly, the bit about liberals and oil is a complete straw-man. The problem people have with oil isn't the law of supply and demand. It's the fact that those in control of the resource have a relative monopoly over it and can exact higher prices than they 'deserve' (according to S&D). Supply and demand breaks down under the influence of monopolies. However, I think you're right that it is similar in analogy to say that unions have a relative monopoly on labor and that allows them to excise greater benefits than they otherwise would.
But while 'liberals' (although I think all Americans have a problem with who controls gas prices) grumble about energy monopolies, and you grumble about labor extortion, our government has refused to act in the former case while levying stiff fines on strikers in the latter. If the government believes it should restrian itself from interfering in market forces, then why has it in this particular case? I suggest that it has done so because regulating markets (including the labor market) is not necessarily a bad thing. Insomuch as regulations preserve the liberty of the market by preventing internal structures from gathering too much influence (whether they be monopolies or overly powerful unions), regulation is necessary to the health of an economy.
Maybe it's time 'conservatives' got on board with us 'liberals' and did something about intelligently regulating other markets as well. (How's that for a counter straw man!)
