Yes, but the understanding is that the immigration should be legal.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
open border for economies = open border for immigration
no one forced them to sneak in, but they aren't going to sit around and die. Increased immigration is at least in part a repercussion of NAFTA
Actually most Mexicans just drive up to the border and just overstay their visa.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but the understanding is that the immigration should be legal.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
open border for economies = open border for immigration
no one forced them to sneak in, but they aren't going to sit around and die. Increased immigration is at least in part a repercussion of NAFTA
It's not hard to get a working permit due to NAFTA... It's the length of time that makes people just jump the border. If they actually lowered immigration process time, it'd be fine.
US have some bullshit health checks too... I mean it's completely pointless.
Not everyone in these facilties is a "border jumping mexican".
has anyone else called
Yeah, much better position geographically. I'd love to see Canada and its supposed utopian society work when it has borders with countries like Mexico, or Middle Eastern/African countries or something like that. Same goes for Norway and all that shit.Turquoise wrote:
Yep, it's why I'm leaving this fucking place eventually. All good things must come to an end, and America is selling itself out.Spark wrote:
What goes around...Turquoise wrote:
The main reason we haven't resolved the illegal situation is because we're too soft.
We're too soft to prosecute employers of illegals, and we're too soft to deport them most of the time. We're also too soft to sanction Mexico for being complicit in this illegal immigration. We're too soft to deal with the border messes involving drug cartels that Mexico clearly is unable to deal with.
And all of this started because American employers were too cheap to pay their workers a decent wage, and because the rest of us were too cheap to be willing to pay for American goods and services made by American labor.
It's really quite sad.
Canada is in a much better position comparatively.
So you're saying that working socialist societies, that are entirely dependent on exploiting their own rich natural resources as the primary support of their economy, and whose natural resources vastly outstrip the size of their population in relation to other nations, are the exception rather than the rule? We can't all live in a socialist utopia?Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, much better position geographically. I'd love to see Canada and its supposed utopian society work when it has borders with countries like Mexico, or Middle Eastern/African countries or something like that. Same goes for Norway and all that shit.Turquoise wrote:
Yep, it's why I'm leaving this fucking place eventually. All good things must come to an end, and America is selling itself out.Spark wrote:
What goes around...
Canada is in a much better position comparatively.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Good points... I'm not saying someone who overstays their visa should be treated harshly. But someone who sneaks in... should be sent back swiftly.Cybargs wrote:
Actually most Mexicans just drive up to the border and just overstay their visa.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but the understanding is that the immigration should be legal.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
open border for economies = open border for immigration
no one forced them to sneak in, but they aren't going to sit around and die. Increased immigration is at least in part a repercussion of NAFTA
It's not hard to get a working permit due to NAFTA... It's the length of time that makes people just jump the border. If they actually lowered immigration process time, it'd be fine.
US have some bullshit health checks too... I mean it's completely pointless.
Well, yeah, of course it's the exception. To be exceptional, you have to be the exception...JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that working socialist societies, that are entirely dependent on exploiting their own rich natural resources as the primary support of their economy, and whose natural resources vastly outstrip the size of their population in relation to other nations, are the exception rather than the rule? We can't all live in a socialist utopia?Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, much better position geographically. I'd love to see Canada and its supposed utopian society work when it has borders with countries like Mexico, or Middle Eastern/African countries or something like that. Same goes for Norway and all that shit.Turquoise wrote:
Yep, it's why I'm leaving this fucking place eventually. All good things must come to an end, and America is selling itself out.
Canada is in a much better position comparatively.
Once a country grows beyond a certain population size and begins to lag in resources vs. population growth and poverty, then problems begin to develop.
America is too large and factionalized to achieve the same consistency of quality in things like education that a country like Canada has. Some states are much poorer than others, whereas Canadians have the advantage of most of their people living in about 10 major cities. It's much easier to organize things that way.
Once you have more than about 40 million people or so, problems begin to mount, and if those people are spread out in lots of rural areas and where poverty is more prevalent, well... quality of life suffers. And of course, with the radically different management styles of each state and city, well... America is anything but consistent.
Granted, some would say that makes us more interesting as a country. Admittedly, I've never perceived Canada as being a particularly exciting place, but it does seem safer.
The grass is always greener, I guess...
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah, of course it's the exception. To be exceptional, you have to be the exception...JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that working socialist societies, that are entirely dependent on exploiting their own rich natural resources as the primary support of their economy, and whose natural resources vastly outstrip the size of their population in relation to other nations, are the exception rather than the rule? We can't all live in a socialist utopia?Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, much better position geographically. I'd love to see Canada and its supposed utopian society work when it has borders with countries like Mexico, or Middle Eastern/African countries or something like that. Same goes for Norway and all that shit.
Once a country grows beyond a certain population size and begins to lag in resources vs. population growth and poverty, then problems begin to develop.
America is too large and factionalized to achieve the same consistency of quality in things like education that a country like Canada has. Some states are much poorer than others, whereas Canadians have the advantage of most of their people living in about 10 major cities. It's much easier to organize things that way.
Once you have more than about 40 million people or so, problems begin to mount, and if those people are spread out in lots of rural areas and where poverty is more prevalent, well... quality of life suffers. And of course, with the radically different management styles of each state and city, well... America is anything but consistent.
Granted, some would say that makes us more interesting as a country. Admittedly, I've never perceived Canada as being a particularly exciting place, but it does seem safer.
The grass is always greener, I guess...
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-"The New Colossus", Emma Lazarus
I'll take the disparity in views, chaotic seeming differences between our various sections, and all the problems that go along with that. Keep your homogenized society where stepping out of line means social ostracism. Out of the chaotic soup that is our country may come the greatest of ideas because they must flourish within a sea of criticism if they are to flourish at all. Chaos is freedom, organized society is bondage.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-15 18:11:08)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that we're currently on track to accept a whole lot of "tired and poor" whether we like it or not. In a society without effective border security, culture becomes a numbers game.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah, of course it's the exception. To be exceptional, you have to be the exception...JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying that working socialist societies, that are entirely dependent on exploiting their own rich natural resources as the primary support of their economy, and whose natural resources vastly outstrip the size of their population in relation to other nations, are the exception rather than the rule? We can't all live in a socialist utopia?
Once a country grows beyond a certain population size and begins to lag in resources vs. population growth and poverty, then problems begin to develop.
America is too large and factionalized to achieve the same consistency of quality in things like education that a country like Canada has. Some states are much poorer than others, whereas Canadians have the advantage of most of their people living in about 10 major cities. It's much easier to organize things that way.
Once you have more than about 40 million people or so, problems begin to mount, and if those people are spread out in lots of rural areas and where poverty is more prevalent, well... quality of life suffers. And of course, with the radically different management styles of each state and city, well... America is anything but consistent.
Granted, some would say that makes us more interesting as a country. Admittedly, I've never perceived Canada as being a particularly exciting place, but it does seem safer.
The grass is always greener, I guess...
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-"The New Colossus", Emma Lazarus
I'll take the disparity in views, chaotic seeming differences between our various sections, and all the problems that go along with that. Keep your homogenized society where stepping out of line means social ostracism. Out of the chaotic soup that is our country may come the greatest of ideas because they must flourish within a sea of criticism if they are to flourish at all. Chaos is freedom, organized society is bondage.
I'd prefer to live in a country where there is an established majority culture that has control over how many people it lets in.
You know these many of the illegals wouldn't have to go into a detention center if they just followed the law...oh wait :-P
It's not about getting a work permit.Turquoise wrote:
Good points... I'm not saying someone who overstays their visa should be treated harshly. But someone who sneaks in... should be sent back swiftly.Cybargs wrote:
Actually most Mexicans just drive up to the border and just overstay their visa.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but the understanding is that the immigration should be legal.
It's not hard to get a working permit due to NAFTA... It's the length of time that makes people just jump the border. If they actually lowered immigration process time, it'd be fine.
US have some bullshit health checks too... I mean it's completely pointless.
What's the point of deporting them if they are going to keep coming back or attempting to? What's the point of paying for the detention of immigrants awaiting deportation? It seems like our government is wasting far too much money going through the motions without really putting in effort to either make the citizenship process easier or enforcing employer and citizenship laws in place. Enacting laws that reek of racism seems far less practical than anything that has been done thus far, which is saying a lot.
Well, the other option is "anything goes." That's basically where we're headed, and before it gets to that point, we'll need to start getting rid of the social safety net.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's not about getting a work permit.Turquoise wrote:
Good points... I'm not saying someone who overstays their visa should be treated harshly. But someone who sneaks in... should be sent back swiftly.Cybargs wrote:
Actually most Mexicans just drive up to the border and just overstay their visa.
It's not hard to get a working permit due to NAFTA... It's the length of time that makes people just jump the border. If they actually lowered immigration process time, it'd be fine.
US have some bullshit health checks too... I mean it's completely pointless.
What's the point of deporting them if they are going to keep coming back or attempting to? What's the point of paying for the detention of immigrants awaiting deportation? It seems like our government is wasting far too much money going through the motions without really putting in effort to either make the citizenship process easier or enforcing employer and citizenship laws in place. Enacting laws that reek of racism seems far less practical than anything that has been done thus far, which is saying a lot.
Social Darwinism is about the only real way to keep the system afloat with a complete lack of border security. Let everyone in, and let the market clear everything. Just be prepared to watch your standard of living collapse.
Granted, this route is only expediting the inevitable effects of globalization. Eventually the vast majority of the world's population will meet in the middle, so to speak. The developing world will live better than it currently does, and the developed world will live worse.
America could go ahead and skip the transition period by opening things completely up and letting the global market dictate whatever is most efficient.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-16 20:44:10)
Standard of living wouldn't drop in developed countries, comparative standard of living would fall. Nothing inherently wrong with that.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the other option is "anything goes." That's basically where we're headed, and before it gets to that point, we'll need to start getting rid of the social safety net.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's not about getting a work permit.Turquoise wrote:
Good points... I'm not saying someone who overstays their visa should be treated harshly. But someone who sneaks in... should be sent back swiftly.
What's the point of deporting them if they are going to keep coming back or attempting to? What's the point of paying for the detention of immigrants awaiting deportation? It seems like our government is wasting far too much money going through the motions without really putting in effort to either make the citizenship process easier or enforcing employer and citizenship laws in place. Enacting laws that reek of racism seems far less practical than anything that has been done thus far, which is saying a lot.
Social Darwinism is about the only real way to keep the system afloat with a complete lack of border security. Let everyone in, and let the market clear everything. Just be prepared to watch your standard of living collapse.
Granted, this route is only expediting the inevitable effects of globalization. Eventually the vast majority of the world's population will meet in the middle, so to speak. The developing world will live better than it currently does, and the developed world will live worse.
America could go ahead and skip the transition period by opening things completely up and letting the global market dictate whatever is most efficient.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Resources are finite. When much more heavily populated countries like China and India consume more, that leaves less for the rest of us to consume. Prices rise for these resources, while capital shifts to the poorer countries while leaving the wealthier ones.JohnG@lt wrote:
Standard of living wouldn't drop in developed countries, comparative standard of living would fall. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
We're all going to meet in the middle, but I would agree that our decadence dissipating is a good thing in the long run.
Wealth isn't zero sum so 'taking' from one country and 'giving' to another is nothing more than a superficial exchange at best. Certain resources are finite, yes, but the vast majority of products bought and sold around the world on a daily basis are cheap precisely because the resources that go into making them are abundant. We're not in any danger of running out of iron, or silicon or aluminum or lumber or even plastic now that they've found a way to make it from corn. If globalization continues on its current path, the poor of the world will resemble our current poor with their full bellies, cable television, working automobiles (updated to whatever the future replaces them with, of course) etc.Turquoise wrote:
Resources are finite. When much more heavily populated countries like China and India consume more, that leaves less for the rest of us to consume. Prices rise for these resources, while capital shifts to the poorer countries while leaving the wealthier ones.JohnG@lt wrote:
Standard of living wouldn't drop in developed countries, comparative standard of living would fall. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
We're all going to meet in the middle, but I would agree that our decadence dissipating is a good thing in the long run.
Globalization will allow us to realize Smith's vision of comparative advantage come to fruition because we won't have gross imbalances in cost of living and living standards driving down labor costs in certain parts of the world regardless of the quality of product they produce. I'm actually jealous of future generations because they will see it come to fruition... c'est la vie.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
By the same token, the only reason you and I can live decadently is because our country developed faster than most of the world. Once the rest of the world catches up, we won't be so decadent anymore. Technology will continue to improve, so we will keep some of our standard of living via that, but other parts will dwindle away.JohnG@lt wrote:
Wealth isn't zero sum so 'taking' from one country and 'giving' to another is nothing more than a superficial exchange at best. Certain resources are finite, yes, but the vast majority of products bought and sold around the world on a daily basis are cheap precisely because the resources that go into making them are abundant. We're not in any danger of running out of iron, or silicon or aluminum or lumber or even plastic now that they've found a way to make it from corn. If globalization continues on its current path, the poor of the world will resemble our current poor with their full bellies, cable television, working automobiles (updated to whatever the future replaces them with, of course) etc.Turquoise wrote:
Resources are finite. When much more heavily populated countries like China and India consume more, that leaves less for the rest of us to consume. Prices rise for these resources, while capital shifts to the poorer countries while leaving the wealthier ones.JohnG@lt wrote:
Standard of living wouldn't drop in developed countries, comparative standard of living would fall. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
We're all going to meet in the middle, but I would agree that our decadence dissipating is a good thing in the long run.
Globalization will allow us to realize Smith's vision of comparative advantage come to fruition because we won't have gross imbalances in cost of living and living standards driving down labor costs in certain parts of the world regardless of the quality of product they produce. I'm actually jealous of future generations because they will see it come to fruition... c'est la vie.
Wealth may not be zero-sum, but even comparative advantage can't preserve our current level of decadence in the long run.
Define decadence then.Turquoise wrote:
By the same token, the only reason you and I can live decadently is because our country developed faster than most of the world. Once the rest of the world catches up, we won't be so decadent anymore. Technology will continue to improve, so we will keep some of our standard of living via that, but other parts will dwindle away.JohnG@lt wrote:
Wealth isn't zero sum so 'taking' from one country and 'giving' to another is nothing more than a superficial exchange at best. Certain resources are finite, yes, but the vast majority of products bought and sold around the world on a daily basis are cheap precisely because the resources that go into making them are abundant. We're not in any danger of running out of iron, or silicon or aluminum or lumber or even plastic now that they've found a way to make it from corn. If globalization continues on its current path, the poor of the world will resemble our current poor with their full bellies, cable television, working automobiles (updated to whatever the future replaces them with, of course) etc.Turquoise wrote:
Resources are finite. When much more heavily populated countries like China and India consume more, that leaves less for the rest of us to consume. Prices rise for these resources, while capital shifts to the poorer countries while leaving the wealthier ones.
We're all going to meet in the middle, but I would agree that our decadence dissipating is a good thing in the long run.
Globalization will allow us to realize Smith's vision of comparative advantage come to fruition because we won't have gross imbalances in cost of living and living standards driving down labor costs in certain parts of the world regardless of the quality of product they produce. I'm actually jealous of future generations because they will see it come to fruition... c'est la vie.
Wealth may not be zero-sum, but even comparative advantage can't preserve our current level of decadence in the long run.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, for starters, cheap gas. Even if we keep gas taxes down, the global demand for gas will continue to rise with time. Eventually, as countries like China and India grow in consumption, gas prices will reach a point where even highly efficient vehicles won't allow us to travel as far or as often as we currently enjoy doing. Unless we switch to cars powered by something other than gasoline, we'll eventually become more dependent on mass transit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Define decadence then.Turquoise wrote:
By the same token, the only reason you and I can live decadently is because our country developed faster than most of the world. Once the rest of the world catches up, we won't be so decadent anymore. Technology will continue to improve, so we will keep some of our standard of living via that, but other parts will dwindle away.JohnG@lt wrote:
Wealth isn't zero sum so 'taking' from one country and 'giving' to another is nothing more than a superficial exchange at best. Certain resources are finite, yes, but the vast majority of products bought and sold around the world on a daily basis are cheap precisely because the resources that go into making them are abundant. We're not in any danger of running out of iron, or silicon or aluminum or lumber or even plastic now that they've found a way to make it from corn. If globalization continues on its current path, the poor of the world will resemble our current poor with their full bellies, cable television, working automobiles (updated to whatever the future replaces them with, of course) etc.
Globalization will allow us to realize Smith's vision of comparative advantage come to fruition because we won't have gross imbalances in cost of living and living standards driving down labor costs in certain parts of the world regardless of the quality of product they produce. I'm actually jealous of future generations because they will see it come to fruition... c'est la vie.
Wealth may not be zero-sum, but even comparative advantage can't preserve our current level of decadence in the long run.
Our economy will naturally shift more towards the service sector with time, and for the most part, these jobs have less disposable income. This means our consumer markets won't be as favorable to manufacturers as they currently are, especially in comparison to rising markets in the developing world.
Essentially, we're set to see more practical limits on the consumption in our lifestyles. We'll have to shift towards more efficient living, and we see some of this already as people cut back in what they actually spend their money on.
The damage that has been done to our currency and the public debts we're amassing will also limit the credit we live off.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-16 23:11:03)
If we keep gas taxes down? You're acting like the natural state of any product is for the government to manipulate and control its pricing artificially via taxation. It's not, at least it isn't in a free society.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for starters, cheap gas. Even if we keep gas taxes down, the global demand for gas will continue to rise with time. Eventually, as countries like China and India grow in consumption, gas prices will reach a point where even highly efficient vehicles won't allow us to travel as far or as often as we currently enjoy doing. Unless we switch to cars powered by something other than gasoline, we'll eventually become more dependent on mass transit.
As for consumption, sure, it's going up, but so is production and exploration (until the stupid moratorium). They've been saying we have fifty years of oil left in the ground... for the past fifty years. Besides, electric vehicles are here and will replace gasoline consumption in vehicles in the near future anyway. The only thing really holding them back is the lack of an industry standard. This IS something that the government can and should get involved in, the DoT certainly has the power to create an industry standard for batteries.
You've got this one completely backwards. Switching to a service industry doesn't lower wages, it increases them. Companies in the service sector have almost no overhead. All they need is an office, a few chairs and computers. Contrast this with a factory and its billions of dollars in machinery. People point out Wall Street bonuses and the high pay they receive and that is precisely my point. Lack of overhead allows them to make so much more because such a larger portion of revenue can be dedicated to salaries. Your typical factory spends 90% of its revenue maintaining its overhead and 10% on salaries, in the service industry its 10% overhead and 90% salaries.Turquoise wrote:
Our economy will naturally shift more towards the service sector with time, and for the most part, these jobs have less disposable income. This means our consumer markets won't be as favorable to manufacturers as they currently are, especially in comparison to rising markets in the developing world.
National debt has nothing to do with individual lines of credit. People are able to live on credit because its profitable for others to extend them credit and then charge interest. That's got nothing to do with anything Washington does.Turquoise wrote:
Essentially, we're set to see more practical limits on the consumption in our lifestyles. We'll have to shift towards more efficient living, and we see some of this already as people cut back in what they actually spend their money on.
The damage that has been done to our currency and the public debts we're amassing will also limit the credit we live off.
If you consider not living off of credit to be a more efficient use of personal resources, you're absolutely correct. If people saved up for what they wanted instead of putting it on a credit card they would have more money to spend on a personal basis. This is common sense though so why are you mentioning it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If we assume all of that is true, then what's the problem with opening the border all the way?JohnG@lt wrote:
If we keep gas taxes down? You're acting like the natural state of any product is for the government to manipulate and control its pricing artificially via taxation. It's not, at least it isn't in a free society.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for starters, cheap gas. Even if we keep gas taxes down, the global demand for gas will continue to rise with time. Eventually, as countries like China and India grow in consumption, gas prices will reach a point where even highly efficient vehicles won't allow us to travel as far or as often as we currently enjoy doing. Unless we switch to cars powered by something other than gasoline, we'll eventually become more dependent on mass transit.
As for consumption, sure, it's going up, but so is production and exploration (until the stupid moratorium). They've been saying we have fifty years of oil left in the ground... for the past fifty years. Besides, electric vehicles are here and will replace gasoline consumption in vehicles in the near future anyway. The only thing really holding them back is the lack of an industry standard. This IS something that the government can and should get involved in, the DoT certainly has the power to create an industry standard for batteries.You've got this one completely backwards. Switching to a service industry doesn't lower wages, it increases them. Companies in the service sector have almost no overhead. All they need is an office, a few chairs and computers. Contrast this with a factory and its billions of dollars in machinery. People point out Wall Street bonuses and the high pay they receive and that is precisely my point. Lack of overhead allows them to make so much more because such a larger portion of revenue can be dedicated to salaries. Your typical factory spends 90% of its revenue maintaining its overhead and 10% on salaries, in the service industry its 10% overhead and 90% salaries.Turquoise wrote:
Our economy will naturally shift more towards the service sector with time, and for the most part, these jobs have less disposable income. This means our consumer markets won't be as favorable to manufacturers as they currently are, especially in comparison to rising markets in the developing world.National debt has nothing to do with individual lines of credit. People are able to live on credit because its profitable for others to extend them credit and then charge interest. That's got nothing to do with anything Washington does.Turquoise wrote:
Essentially, we're set to see more practical limits on the consumption in our lifestyles. We'll have to shift towards more efficient living, and we see some of this already as people cut back in what they actually spend their money on.
The damage that has been done to our currency and the public debts we're amassing will also limit the credit we live off.
If you consider not living off of credit to be a more efficient use of personal resources, you're absolutely correct. If people saved up for what they wanted instead of putting it on a credit card they would have more money to spend on a personal basis. This is common sense though so why are you mentioning it?
If globalization is supposedly capable of improving all of our lives in the long run, why not let the market itself be the sole determinant as to who lives in each country? Shouldn't employers be allowed to hire literally anyone they want to?
Yes. I don't have a problem with illegal immigration but I do feel we need to control our borders simply to keep the drug wars that are going on in Mexico from carrying over onto our soil. As I said in other threads, I have zero compassion for the 'they took ur jobs' crowd because if they can't compete with an uneducated immigrant who can't even speak the language then they have bigger issues. Every employer should be able to hire the best help he can find regardless of their country of origin. In the same way that protectionism limits consumer choice, anti-immigration policies adversely effect employers and shallow the pool from which they can draw labor resources.
People get all bent out of shape because 'America won't be America anymore', well, survival of the fittest and white people all over the globe are a dying species because of all the social taboos they've built up around having kids. The simple truth is that we're being outbred and all a state like Arizona is doing is plugging the dike with their finger. The flood is still coming. I'm ok with that.
People get all bent out of shape because 'America won't be America anymore', well, survival of the fittest and white people all over the globe are a dying species because of all the social taboos they've built up around having kids. The simple truth is that we're being outbred and all a state like Arizona is doing is plugging the dike with their finger. The flood is still coming. I'm ok with that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Okay. Whatever you say bro.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. I don't have a problem with illegal immigration ...The flood is still coming. I'm ok with that.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 37369.htmlA new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that as a result of immigration, California now has the least-educated labor force of any state. Historically, California was not a state with a disproportionately large unskilled population, like Appalachia or parts of the South. However, immigration has transformed the state. Absent a change in immigration policy, other parts of the country may be transformed in a similar fashion.
http://www.cis.org/california-educationThe large share of California adults who have very little education is likely to strain social services and make it challenging for the state to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the demands for services made by its large unskilled population.
Your simpleminded solution means perpetual financial crisis and ever more fleeing businesses.
1st businesses flee the states overran with uneducated illegal immigrants, then they flee the country that embraces lawlessness and anarchy and a caste system.
Clearly the real issue is that the state of California has built itself a pretty damning social welfare system. Couple this with the proposition that limits the amount of state income and property taxes that individuals are required to pay and you've got the perfect storm of debt, spiraling corporate taxes and other issues that make the state a terrible place to own and operate a business. Unskilled and uneducated workers quickly reach saturation levels in any given market and are normally forced to migrate elsewhere when they can't find a job. Because Californians are... well... retarded, they give benefits to people who have no hope of ever being productive enough to repay them.
Everything you listed is California's problem and has been caused BY California. It sure as fuck wasn't caused by the illegal immigrants who flooded into the state. It was the system that California built that has caused it to fail.
Everything you listed is California's problem and has been caused BY California. It sure as fuck wasn't caused by the illegal immigrants who flooded into the state. It was the system that California built that has caused it to fail.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-17 20:07:50)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Fair enough. Although if we legalized all drugs, then these cartels would no longer have such a hold on these markets.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. I don't have a problem with illegal immigration but I do feel we need to control our borders simply to keep the drug wars that are going on in Mexico from carrying over onto our soil. As I said in other threads, I have zero compassion for the 'they took ur jobs' crowd because if they can't compete with an uneducated immigrant who can't even speak the language then they have bigger issues. Every employer should be able to hire the best help he can find regardless of their country of origin. In the same way that protectionism limits consumer choice, anti-immigration policies adversely effect employers and shallow the pool from which they can draw labor resources.
Well, if we assume that globalization results in a universal rising of the standard of living, then that means Latinos will slowly start to breed less as they make more money. Generally speaking, the higher your standard of living, the smaller your family is (on average).JohnG@lt wrote:
People get all bent out of shape because 'America won't be America anymore', well, survival of the fittest and white people all over the globe are a dying species because of all the social taboos they've built up around having kids. The simple truth is that we're being outbred and all a state like Arizona is doing is plugging the dike with their finger. The flood is still coming. I'm ok with that.