Chomsky Warns of Danger of Fascism

[Michael Tee]

<<The unions are middlemen in the sense that they take a cut from the members pay in order to finance whatever value added services they provide.>>

The unions are basically the bargaining agents of the workers.  The workers unite with other workers on other jobs and hire people to be their bargaining agents.  But at all times the union exists only as the representative of the workers.  OTOH, if the workers choose not to join, the union still has an independent existence of its own, with or without them.  They provide a service to the workers who choose to affiliate themselves with the union.

Is everyone who provides something to the workers a middleman?  If the workers pay a cut out of their salary to the store that sells them the workboots that they have to wear on the job, is the storekeeper then a middleman?

I guess the workers are an integral part of housing production, and so anyone that is essential to their function (the union, for example) is also an integral part of production rather than a middleman.

OTOH, speculators are not an essential part of the production.  Neither are their lawyers and accountants.  Multiple owners of the housing inventory, each with their own pack of lawyers, accountants, advertising agencies, real estate salesmen and women and property managers are all parasites and middlemen because if all the land were owned and financed by one entity (the state) there would be no need for 99% of them.  None are essential to housing production, as Fidel Castro, and before him, Joe Stalin, proved conclusively.

[BT]

OTOH, speculators are not an essential part of the production.

Actually the financing portion of a project is just as important as the work being done, because without the former the latter often can't place. So in that sense, it is an integral portion of the equation.

On the other hand, work can be done without union bosses taking their cut of the workers wages.

[Amianthus]

Is everyone who provides something to the workers a middleman?  If the workers pay a cut out of their salary to the store that sells them the workboots that they have to wear on the job, is the storekeeper then a middleman?

If they are mandated to purchase the boots at one particular store, then yes, the storekeeper is a middleman.

If, however, they can purchase the boots at any store they choose, then no.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually the financing portion of a project is just as important as the work being done, because without the former the latter often can't place. So in that sense, it is an integral portion of the equation.>>

The capitalist system that allows capital to be concentrated in private hands of course CREATES the position of mortgage lender; my point is that the banks and institutions that do the lending and profit mightily from it have suborned the government to prevent any change to a socialist economy, so that their parasitic activities can continue to bleed the working class.  Thus they are both middlemen and parasites because they have created a whole unnecessary niche which they themselves can fill in the production process, while actually contributing nothing of value to the end-product.

<<On the other hand, work can be done without union bosses taking their cut of the workers wages. >>

The workers wouldn't enjoy the wages they earn without the bargaining power provided by the union.  Some of the extra wages is kicked back as union dues so that they can continue to enjoy the benefits of a union job:  negotiated salaries, benefits and enhanced job safety.

[Plane]

<<Actually the financing portion of a project is just as important as the work being done, because without the former the latter often can't place. So in that sense, it is an integral portion of the equation.>>

The capitalist system that allows capital to be concentrated in private hands of course CREATES the position of mortgage lender; my point is that the banks and institutions that do the lending and profit mightily from it have suborned the government to prevent any change to a socialist economy, so that their parasitic activities can continue to bleed the working class.  Thus they are both middlemen and parasites because they have created a whole unnecessary niche which they themselves can fill in the production process, while actually contributing nothing of value to the end-product.

Without lenders , how does anyone build something that is going to pay for itself over time ?

[BT]

The capitalist system that allows capital to be concentrated in private hands of course CREATES the position of mortgage lender; my point is that the banks and institutions that do the lending and profit mightily from it have suborned the government to prevent any change to a socialist economy, so that their parasitic activities can continue to bleed the working class.

OK. Suppose the government was the first recource for financing.

Where does the government get its money?

[Michael Tee]

Issues notes, same as any government. 

[BT]

Issues notes, same as any government. 

What is the collateral for these notes?

[Michael Tee]

Collateral for the notes?  You're drawing me out of my field here, but I would expect it's a combination of gold and other precious metals, plus the nation's reserves of foreign currencies.  If you're about to suggest that the national currency might be under-collateralized, you've probably got me in over my head.  I've heard the argument all my life applied to the U.S. dollar as well as many other currencies and I've always had to balance the fact that to my simple ears, the argument seemed to be making sense, but OTOH the sky never did seem to fall.  I think one of the explanations given was credit - - that people seemed to put a lot more faith in under-collateralized currencies than was warranted, given the lack of collateral, and the currency floated on that faith.  Then periodically, one currency or another would collapse (e.g., Argentina) and they'd make up a new currency, wiping out the life savings of a lot of people, which really wouldn't matter under socialism because the state would look after them anyway.

[Plane]

  I think that I have more change in my pocket than the US dollar has colateral.

[BT]

[Michael Tee]

<<I think that I have more change in my pocket than the US dollar has colateral.>>

WOW!!! Wanna share some a that change with your friends in 3DHS?

[Michael Tee]

BT posts a simple chart in a matter of seconds (or minutes, depending on how long it took to find it) but capable of generating hours of debate. What is the overlap between corporate income tax and individual income tax?  I mean one corporation is going to fund the income of quite a few individual taxpayers.   What percentage of the real workforce is represented by those workers who paid the 36% slice with payroll taxes?  How much corporate profit is expensed out to "subcontractors" who then find other ways of evading or avoiding tax on their "subcontractor" income? 

I dunno what point BT was trying to make by posting the chart, so I think I'll just ask him.

[BT]

Notes issued are collateralized by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. The major source of Federal revenue is derived from personal taxes. The point is that if the government is to be the lender of first recourse what it would be doing is loaning the people the very monies that it confiscated from them in the first place.

.

[sirs]

Bingo.....a subtlety I might add, that is all too often overlooked