OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, Brueggs said: Interesting. So you must be a fan of the border wall? It helps the poor by not allowing ILLEGAL immigrants in who would occupy many of the jobs the poor could fill. It would also help to curtail the influx of illegal drugs coming over the border. So, you like the electoral college when it works for you, but when it doesn't you want to destroy it? Change the rules as you go mentality? You really don't think mail in voting is a plot to undermine the voting system? OK. I guess its easier to understand how you come to your conclusions when we see how conflicted you are... ...LMAO......hire a shrink QUICKLY......then buy stock in Excedrin....... 1
Capco Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 5 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: income equality I don't think enough people fully understand how much this one factor alone impacts just about everything else you listed. If you have 5 minutes, please watch this. It's a snippet from the documentary "Inequality for All" and articulates my points better than I can. "The wider the prosperity => the more people were included in that prosperity => the more that prosperity generated even more prosperity." And compare that with the following 35 second clip from the same documentary that illustrates the opposite approach. When inequality grows, wages stagnate. Stagnant wages means workers buy less than they would have with rising wages. When workers buy less, companies downsize or cease growing. When companies downsize and wages stagnate, tax revenues decrease. Lower tax revenues means government must cut programs. Many of these programs help lift people out of poverty, like funding of public education. A lower educated workforce in a 21st century industrialized economy means there are fewer employable persons, and unemployment rises. With even fewer people paying taxes and more people drawing on government programs because of higher poverty rates, deficits grow. Higher deficits means the government can do even less to combat inequality and increase wages. 1 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 On 10/14/2020 at 5:29 PM, Capco said: Hi, RealKayAdams. This is the original piece from June 26, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html I agree that the main weakness of many left leaning candidates is personality weakness and strategy blunders rather than policies. It amazes me sometimes how they can't articulate what are genuinely good ideas. I think I'm very close to where you reside on the spectrum. I like many Marxist principles but I'm not so far to the left (or so far authoritarian) that I would call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I think in the (very) long run communism of some form will prevail, if only out of necessity. Capitalism is fascinating in that it has sown the seeds of its very own destruction; it's only a matter of time. I'd like to write more but I have a Contracts midterm exam tomorrow that I need to study for. I look forward to reading more of your posts! EDIT: I'm Polish too! Yeah, I’m really only a Marxist in the sense that I think good ol’ Karl and Mr. Engels did an excellent job articulating the problems with laissez-faire capitalism. From the convenient vantage point of living in the early twenty-first century, however, I have to say that their nineteenth-century solutions to capitalism’s problems left a lot to be desired. With human nature having evolved into the current form that it did, I don’t think communism will work any time soon for complex social structures larger than a few hundred or so people. The classical liberal values of money, property, and socioeconomic stratification are here to stay…and that’s perfectly fine by me, really. I’m very much a pro-capitalism person. I just happen to believe that government has a significant role to play in saving capitalism from itself. So for the time being, I’ll proudly wear the scarlet letters, “S.D.,” in this country to identify myself as a social democrat. But I ultimately favor pragmatism and common sense over political and economic dogmatism, so who knows where my weird brain will be in, say, November 2024?? I hope you did well on your midterm exam?! Yes, Polish people rock! That’s why Hitler invaded our homeland first. Unbridled JEALOUSY. On 10/15/2020 at 4:42 PM, Cinga said: Tyranny is tyranny, whether it's from government or from the corporate world and belongs on the end along with your statism or totalitarianism. After al, aren't you just handing control over to another entity in both? And that entity is still taking away your freedoms, whether it is control over you directly, or control over your life through your work life. If to the extreme right you have anarchy, how in the world can there by corporate tyranny since anarchy is by definition the lack of government, ie and overseer of any kind. I'm with you in that also to that extreme, something or someone will greedily take over, probably by force. But you can also argue that in the other extreme, pure utopia will never happen either, because some will refuse to labor for the good of the many... So I am still going to argue to the left is control, to the right is liberty. Each extreme is wrong, be it total communal control, or total anarchy. Cinga, I think we’re moving closer to a mutual understanding, but I need to make a few more clarifications. I’m defining tyranny simply as “any unreasonable and excessive control over an individual’s life.” That 1-D line you reference, as I understood it, is strictly a measure of the amount of GOVERNMENT control. Government control is distinct from corporate control in that a government can exercise its power to enforce law and order as well as its power to tax. One’s ability to escape government tyranny (leave country, vote for new politicians, peaceful activism/violent revolution) is quite different from one’s ability to escape corporate tyranny (leave job, boycott goods/services, use government to enforce regulations). I’m also defining corporate tyranny as the end state of either neoliberalism (companies hijacking a feeble government for the people) or of anarcho-capitalism (companies ruling in total absence of government restraint). These following three contentions undergird my definition of corporate tyranny: laissez-faire capitalism is terrible at resolving many market failures, it does not lead to anything close to optimal economic utility (i.e. well-being) at the aggregate (i.e. societal) level, and it is an amoral system frequently overrun with immoral sociopaths (as in…clinical diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria). With all of that out of the way, I’ll now restate two important themes from my last post: 1. More government control does not necessarily equate to less individual freedom. Equivalently, less government control doesn’t necessarily mean more liberty. One easily understood thought experiment among so many: a black family driving through a desolate region of the Deep South, desperately searching for food and gasoline service during the Jim Crow era, before all that pesky government intervention (1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, etc.). 2. The Democratic Party, relative to the Republican Party on that 1-D line of yours, is not consistently about more government control over the individual’s life. A prominent example among multiple: the broad Christian Coalition platform embedded within the Republican Party. On 10/17/2020 at 7:54 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: The thing is generally everybody's for: better education better health care eliminating poverty less people in prison eliminating racial bias income equality equal rights for everyone eliminating hunger a clean environment solving student debt problems good housing for everyone good paying jobs for everyone The contention is generated from differences in how to accomplish these goals. So what are you willing to do in order to accomplish these objectives? Ok, so let’s parse through your list of 12 a little more. I assume by “income equality” you mean less extreme income inequality? The political right generally sees the extreme inequality as a feature and not a flaw of capitalism. Both sides may agree on 3 of these (eliminating racial bias, equal rights for everyone, a clean environment) in the abstract, but they often disagree greatly when you examine specific cases…to the point that the political left doesn’t believe the political right views these as legitimate societal problems to solve anymore. 7 of these that you list (better education, better health care, eliminating poverty, less people in prison, eliminating hunger, solving student debt problems, good housing for everyone) are often treated among the political right as individual moral failings (laziness, irresponsibility, hopeless incompetence) and not systemic problems for politicians to address. The right DOES make (valid) arguments that government intervention can make these 7 issues worse and that private charity can help redress them, but I always find these arguments partially adequate at best and willfully oblivious to the systemic flaws ingrained within capitalism. For the last one (good paying jobs for everyone), the political right simply has lower standards for what constitutes a “good paying job” at the lowest tiers of the wage scale. On 10/17/2020 at 8:06 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: I said most people. Do you see anyone campaigning for more poverty, or more hunger, or more bias? If you have I'd like to see it. The difference of opinion is how to achieve these things. Like the Green New Deal. I'm all for it if you can support base load power requirements without interruption or variance in output at a cost that is competitive with current and conventional power generation sources. But if you're going to tell me my power bill is going to be 4 times higher and we'll experience rolling blackouts every day then I'm against it. Like all ideas and objectives the "devils in the details". I encourage you to look into all of the advancements (energy transfer efficiencies, energy storage capabilities, materials engineering, etc.) that have been made in renewable energy technology within the past 5-10 years, compared to the first 10-15 years of this century (especially with solar!). Also, look into other countries around the world and examine how they have been transitioning their electric power infrastructures away from fossil fuels. Lots of quality academic research literature exists out there on electric power grid performances and costs using fully renewables, hybrid renewables with nuclear (my personal favorite!), and hybrid renewables that couple home/building energy systems with traditional fossil fuel power grids. The research is based on both international case studies and speculative ones for the future. On 10/17/2020 at 2:20 PM, Capco said: I don't think enough people fully understand how much this one factor alone impacts just about everything else you listed. If you have 5 minutes, please watch this. It's a snippet from the documentary "Inequality for All" and articulates my points better than I can. "The wider the prosperity => the more people were included in that prosperity => the more that prosperity generated even more prosperity." And compare that with the following 35 second clip from the same documentary that illustrates the opposite approach. When inequality grows, wages stagnate. Stagnant wages means workers buy less than they would have with rising wages. When workers buy less, companies downsize or cease growing. When companies downsize and wages stagnate, tax revenues decrease. Lower tax revenues means government must cut programs. Many of these programs help lift people out of poverty, like funding of public education. A lower educated workforce in a 21st century industrialized economy means there are fewer employable persons, and unemployment rises. With even fewer people paying taxes and more people drawing on government programs because of higher poverty rates, deficits grow. Higher deficits means the government can do even less to combat inequality and increase wages. This statement is worth exploring further: “When inequality grows, wages stagnate.” From a theoretical economics perspective, this doesn’t HAVE to be the case, but if often ends up being the case. Why exactly is that? Globalization, the destruction of unions, crony capitalism, and wealth-hoarding billionaires/multi-millionaires are 4 big reasons that I’m sure Robert Reich thoroughly covers in his “Inequality for All” documentary (oddly enough, I have yet to see it but eventually will!). By “wealth-hoarding” behavior, I specifically mean not investing money saved from marginal tax rate reductions back into society via domestic job-creating companies or social welfare programs like education. There’s another possible reason that I’m not sure gets discussed much. If we focus on the histogram shape of wage frequency versus wage distribution across the total U.S. population and run it through time (say, from 1980 through 2020), we’ll notice a couple interesting things. The first is that the middle class has been hollowing out for sure. The second is that there’s still more than enough “thickness” on the approximate upper half of the histogram to sustain a healthy-enough economy! In other words…if you do enough back-of-the-envelope area-under-curve calculations on the histograms and make temporal comparisons between them all, you will easily see how you can quietly convert a macroeconomy into one that caters predominantly to the wealthier portion at the near exclusion of the less wealthy portion. So contrary to what economic libertarians often argue, wages at the lower end don’t necessarily NEED to be increased in accordance with all the extra wealth creation (as measured by GDP) in order to have enough people purchasing these extra goods and services. Also not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between highest education level attained and wage tier. So how have we allowed all this to happen? Simple: corporate media propaganda and voter suppression. I have sooo much more to say on wealth inequality and wage stagnation, but it kinda looks like we have kidnapped the thread topic like it’s a governor of Michigan…so I will talk about this stuff somewhere else and sometime after the election hysteria dies down. Look for a new thread of mine in November. Here are some working titles: 1. “Neoliberalism and the death of the American Dream.” Not bad, Kay, not bad… 2. “Reaganomics: the hideous love child of Barry (Goldwater) and Ayn (Rand).” Meh… 3. “A 40-year golden shower: what really trickled down from Art Laffer.” Ew. 4. “K-shaped recovery, economic depression, socialist revolution.” Oooh I like it! Provocative AND apropos of current events. I think I’ll go with this one! 1 2
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 On 10/17/2020 at 10:11 AM, Brueggs said: Interesting. So you must be a fan of the border wall? It helps the poor by not allowing ILLEGAL immigrants in who would occupy many of the jobs the poor could fill. It would also help to curtail the influx of illegal drugs coming over the border. So, you like the electoral college when it works for you, but when it doesn't you want to destroy it? Change the rules as you go mentality? You really don't think mail in voting is a plot to undermine the voting system? OK. I guess its easier to understand how you come to your conclusions when we see how conflicted you are... Immigrants create jobs. Learn a little economics, you won’t look so ignorant. And the wall won’t stop any drugs, that’s stupid
US Egg Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said: On 10/14/2020 at 5:29 PM, Capco said: Hi, RealKayAdams. This is the original piece from June 26, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html I agree that the main weakness of many left leaning candidates is personality weakness and strategy blunders rather than policies. It amazes me sometimes how they can't articulate what are genuinely good ideas. I think I'm very close to where you reside on the spectrum. I like many Marxist principles but I'm not so far to the left (or so far authoritarian) that I would call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I think in the (very) long run communism of some form will prevail, if only out of necessity. Capitalism is fascinating in that it has sown the seeds of its very own destruction; it's only a matter of time. I'd like to write more but I have a Contracts midterm exam tomorrow that I need to study for. I look forward to reading more of your posts! EDIT: I'm Polish too! Yeah, I’m really only a Marxist in the sense that I think good ol’ Karl and Mr. Engels did an excellent job articulating the problems with laissez-faire capitalism. From the convenient vantage point of living in the early twenty-first century, however, I have to say that their nineteenth-century solutions to capitalism’s problems left a lot to be desired. With human nature having evolved into the current form that it did, I don’t think communism will work any time soon for complex social structures larger than a few hundred or so people. The classical liberal values of money, property, and socioeconomic stratification are here to stay…and that’s perfectly fine by me, really. I’m very much a pro-capitalism person. I just happen to believe that government has a significant role to play in saving capitalism from itself. So for the time being, I’ll proudly wear the scarlet letters, “S.D.,” in this country to identify myself as a social democrat. But I ultimately favor pragmatism and common sense over political and economic dogmatism, so who knows where my weird brain will be in, say, November 2024?? I hope you did well on your midterm exam?! Yes, Polish people rock! That’s why Hitler invaded our homeland first. Unbridled JEALOUSY. On 10/15/2020 at 4:42 PM, Cinga said: Tyranny is tyranny, whether it's from government or from the corporate world and belongs on the end along with your statism or totalitarianism. After al, aren't you just handing control over to another entity in both? And that entity is still taking away your freedoms, whether it is control over you directly, or control over your life through your work life. If to the extreme right you have anarchy, how in the world can there by corporate tyranny since anarchy is by definition the lack of government, ie and overseer of any kind. I'm with you in that also to that extreme, something or someone will greedily take over, probably by force. But you can also argue that in the other extreme, pure utopia will never happen either, because some will refuse to labor for the good of the many... So I am still going to argue to the left is control, to the right is liberty. Each extreme is wrong, be it total communal control, or total anarchy. Cinga, I think we’re moving closer to a mutual understanding, but I need to make a few more clarifications. I’m defining tyranny simply as “any unreasonable and excessive control over an individual’s life.” That 1-D line you reference, as I understood it, is strictly a measure of the amount of GOVERNMENT control. Government control is distinct from corporate control in that a government can exercise its power to enforce law and order as well as its power to tax. One’s ability to escape government tyranny (leave country, vote for new politicians, peaceful activism/violent revolution) is quite different from one’s ability to escape corporate tyranny (leave job, boycott goods/services, use government to enforce regulations). I’m also defining corporate tyranny as the end state of either neoliberalism (companies hijacking a feeble government for the people) or of anarcho-capitalism (companies ruling in total absence of government restraint). These following three contentions undergird my definition of corporate tyranny: laissez-faire capitalism is terrible at resolving many market failures, it does not lead to anything close to optimal economic utility (i.e. well-being) at the aggregate (i.e. societal) level, and it is an amoral system frequently overrun with immoral sociopaths (as in…clinical diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria). With all of that out of the way, I’ll now restate two important themes from my last post: 1. More government control does not necessarily equate to less individual freedom. Equivalently, less government control doesn’t necessarily mean more liberty. One easily understood thought experiment among so many: a black family driving through a desolate region of the Deep South, desperately searching for food and gasoline service during the Jim Crow era, before all that pesky government intervention (1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, etc.). 2. The Democratic Party, relative to the Republican Party on that 1-D line of yours, is not consistently about more government control over the individual’s life. A prominent example among multiple: the broad Christian Coalition platform embedded within the Republican Party. On 10/17/2020 at 7:54 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: The thing is generally everybody's for: better education better health care eliminating poverty less people in prison eliminating racial bias income equality equal rights for everyone eliminating hunger a clean environment solving student debt problems good housing for everyone good paying jobs for everyone The contention is generated from differences in how to accomplish these goals. So what are you willing to do in order to accomplish these objectives? Ok, so let’s parse through your list of 12 a little more. I assume by “income equality” you mean less extreme income inequality? The political right generally sees the extreme inequality as a feature and not a flaw of capitalism. Both sides may agree on 3 of these (eliminating racial bias, equal rights for everyone, a clean environment) in the abstract, but they often disagree greatly when you examine specific cases…to the point that the political left doesn’t believe the political right views these as legitimate societal problems to solve anymore. 7 of these that you list (better education, better health care, eliminating poverty, less people in prison, eliminating hunger, solving student debt problems, good housing for everyone) are often treated among the political right as individual moral failings (laziness, irresponsibility, hopeless incompetence) and not systemic problems for politicians to address. The right DOES make (valid) arguments that government intervention can make these 7 issues worse and that private charity can help redress them, but I always find these arguments partially adequate at best and willfully oblivious to the systemic flaws ingrained within capitalism. For the last one (good paying jobs for everyone), the political right simply has lower standards for what constitutes a “good paying job” at the lowest tiers of the wage scale. On 10/17/2020 at 8:06 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: I said most people. Do you see anyone campaigning for more poverty, or more hunger, or more bias? If you have I'd like to see it. The difference of opinion is how to achieve these things. Like the Green New Deal. I'm all for it if you can support base load power requirements without interruption or variance in output at a cost that is competitive with current and conventional power generation sources. But if you're going to tell me my power bill is going to be 4 times higher and we'll experience rolling blackouts every day then I'm against it. Like all ideas and objectives the "devils in the details". I encourage you to look into all of the advancements (energy transfer efficiencies, energy storage capabilities, materials engineering, etc.) that have been made in renewable energy technology within the past 5-10 years, compared to the first 10-15 years of this century (especially with solar!). Also, look into other countries around the world and examine how they have been transitioning their electric power infrastructures away from fossil fuels. Lots of quality academic research literature exists out there on electric power grid performances and costs using fully renewables, hybrid renewables with nuclear (my personal favorite!), and hybrid renewables that couple home/building energy systems with traditional fossil fuel power grids. The research is based on both international case studies and speculative ones for the future. On 10/17/2020 at 2:20 PM, Capco said: I don't think enough people fully understand how much this one factor alone impacts just about everything else you listed. If you have 5 minutes, please watch this. It's a snippet from the documentary "Inequality for All" and articulates my points better than I can. "The wider the prosperity => the more people were included in that prosperity => the more that prosperity generated even more prosperity." And compare that with the following 35 second clip from the same documentary that illustrates the opposite approach. When inequality grows, wages stagnate. Stagnant wages means workers buy less than they would have with rising wages. When workers buy less, companies downsize or cease growing. When companies downsize and wages stagnate, tax revenues decrease. Lower tax revenues means government must cut programs. Many of these programs help lift people out of poverty, like funding of public education. A lower educated workforce in a 21st century industrialized economy means there are fewer employable persons, and unemployment rises. With even fewer people paying taxes and more people drawing on government programs because of higher poverty rates, deficits grow. Higher deficits means the government can do even less to combat inequality and increase wages. This statement is worth exploring further: “When inequality grows, wages stagnate.” From a theoretical economics perspective, this doesn’t HAVE to be the case, but if often ends up being the case. Why exactly is that? Globalization, the destruction of unions, crony capitalism, and wealth-hoarding billionaires/multi-millionaires are 4 big reasons that I’m sure Robert Reich thoroughly covers in his “Inequality for All” documentary (oddly enough, I have yet to see it but eventually will!). By “wealth-hoarding” behavior, I specifically mean not investing money saved from marginal tax rate reductions back into society via domestic job-creating companies or social welfare programs like education. There’s another possible reason that I’m not sure gets discussed much. If we focus on the histogram shape of wage frequency versus wage distribution across the total U.S. population and run it through time (say, from 1980 through 2020), we’ll notice a couple interesting things. The first is that the middle class has been hollowing out for sure. The second is that there’s still more than enough “thickness” on the approximate upper half of the histogram to sustain a healthy-enough economy! In other words…if you do enough back-of-the-envelope area-under-curve calculations on the histograms and make temporal comparisons between them all, you will easily see how you can quietly convert a macroeconomy into one that caters predominantly to the wealthier portion at the near exclusion of the less wealthy portion. So contrary to what economic libertarians often argue, wages at the lower end don’t necessarily NEED to be increased in accordance with all the extra wealth creation (as measured by GDP) in order to have enough people purchasing these extra goods and services. Also not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between highest education level attained and wage tier. So how have we allowed all this to happen? Simple: corporate media propaganda and voter suppression. I have sooo much more to say on wealth inequality and wage stagnation, but it kinda looks like we have kidnapped the thread topic like it’s a governor of Michigan…so I will talk about this stuff somewhere else and sometime after the election hysteria dies down. Look for a new thread of mine in November. Here are some working titles: 1. “Neoliberalism and the death of the American Dream.” Not bad, Kay, not bad… 2. “Reaganomics: the hideous love child of Barry (Goldwater) and Ayn (Rand).” Meh… 3. “A 40-year golden shower: what really trickled down from Art Laffer.” Ew. 4. “K-shaped recovery, economic depression, socialist revolution.” Oooh I like it! Provocative AND apropos of current events. I think I’ll go with this one! ...... yeah, whatever. Edited October 21, 2020 by I am the egg man
Brueggs Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Immigrants create jobs. Learn a little economics, you won’t look so ignorant. And the wall won’t stop any drugs, that’s stupid Did you see where I bolded the word ILLEGAL to help you differentiate between ILLEGAL immigrants and immigrants? I thought that would help distinguish the difference for those who choose to ignore that very important point. So, you are trying to tell us that illegal immigrants come over here and create jobs? Do you mean fill jobs, or create illegal jobs? Please expain. I think the wall will prevent some drugs from crossing over, but it will not stop drugs, nothing will. I should have said it will greatly help reduce human trafficking and illegal crossings. Better?
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, Brueggs said: Did you see where I bolded the word ILLEGAL to help you differentiate between ILLEGAL immigrants and immigrants? I thought that would help distinguish the difference for those who choose to ignore that very important point. So, you are trying to tell us that illegal immigrants come over here and create jobs? Do you mean fill jobs, or create illegal jobs? Please expain. I think the wall will prevent some drugs from crossing over, but it will not stop drugs, nothing will. I should have said it will greatly help reduce human trafficking and illegal crossings. Better? Makes no difference to the economic equation, and the stupid wall implies making an economic barrier which is really dumb
Brueggs Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Makes no difference to the economic equation, and the stupid wall implies making an economic barrier which is really dumb You keep giving your opinion with no explanation. Please explain how ILLEGAL immigrants create jobs? Please explain how the wall is an economic barrier? Except for mules of drugs and human trafficking...I will give you that...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, Brueggs said: You keep giving your opinion with no explanation. Please explain how ILLEGAL immigrants create jobs? Please explain how the wall is an economic barrier? Except for mules of drugs and human trafficking...I will give you that... A factory can’t expand because it has no workers, it finds immigrants to fill the role, the factory then contracts out for goods and services which creates jobs down the line. Does that make sense?
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 The wall is a barrier, economies do way better without artificial bottle necks
Brueggs Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 25 minutes ago, Tiberius said: A factory can’t expand because it has no workers, it finds immigrants to fill the role, the factory then contracts out for goods and services which creates jobs down the line. Does that make sense? So, they FILL jobs, not CREATE jobs as you previously stated? Again, ILLEGAL immigrants cannot even LEGALLY fill jobs because a factory (which created the jobs) cannot LEGALLY pay them. Does that make sense? Can you distinguish the difference between legal and illegal? It is significant.
Brueggs Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 24 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The wall is a barrier, economies do way better without artificial bottle necks Again with the emotional opinion with no basis to substantiate your claim. I enjoy a good debate, but if you're not going to bring any substance to your argument, what is the point? You sidestep the issues of ILLEGAL immigration, human trafficking and drug running and try to fabricate some economic disadvantage. You are stuck in the middle of some type of ideology and cant rationalize your way out.
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, Brueggs said: So, they FILL jobs, not CREATE jobs as you previously stated? Again, ILLEGAL immigrants cannot even LEGALLY fill jobs because a factory (which created the jobs) cannot LEGALLY pay them. Does that make sense? Can you distinguish the difference between legal and illegal? It is significant. Which allows businesses to expand, buy more raw materials, rent trucking etc. Does that make sense? Do you get it? A business gets workers, so it can create more business, thus creating more jobs down the line? Not sure I can explain it any simpler, but if you still can't understand I'll write it another way 12 minutes ago, Brueggs said: Again with the emotional opinion with no basis to substantiate your claim. I enjoy a good debate, but if you're not going to bring any substance to your argument, what is the point? You sidestep the issues of ILLEGAL immigration, human trafficking and drug running and try to fabricate some economic disadvantage. You are stuck in the middle of some type of ideology and cant rationalize your way out. The wall stops none of those bad things, very ineffective but it does put a barrier between buyers and sellers, which increases costs, Who pays? Consumers
Westside Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Makes no difference to the economic equation, and the stupid wall implies making an economic barrier which is really dumb You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, westside2 said: You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Barriers to economic trade drive up costs, that's a fact 1
Capco Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 3 hours ago, I am the egg man said: ...... yeah, whatever. Riveting commentary. Highly persuasive. You've sold me on your point, even if I have no idea what it is. /s 3
Brueggs Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 31 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Which allows businesses to expand, buy more raw materials, rent trucking etc. Does that make sense? Do you get it? A business gets workers, so it can create more business, thus creating more jobs down the line? Not sure I can explain it any simpler, but if you still can't understand I'll write it another way The wall stops none of those bad things, very ineffective but it does put a barrier between buyers and sellers, which increases costs, Who pays? Consumers You literally said "immigrants create jobs", referring to illegals. Do you understand the difference between creating jobs, and filling jobs? You obviously don't. Sorry bud, but you are just too far gone to continue... 2
snafu Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 7 hours ago, RealKayAdams said: 1. More government control does not necessarily equate to less individual freedom. Equivalently, less government control doesn’t necessarily mean more liberty. One easily understood thought experiment among so many: a black family driving through a desolate region of the Deep South, desperately searching for food and gasoline service during the Jim Crow era, before all that pesky government intervention (1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, etc.). I get your point but your example is awful -- whether I agree with your point at all. Jim Crow repressions were codified and implemented by more government intervention, not less. To me, more government intervention is going to step on someone's toes. Your example points that out nicely. Freedom is freedom, and you don't really have to agree with the freedom being sought.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, Brueggs said: You keep giving your opinion with no explanation. Please explain how ILLEGAL immigrants create jobs? Please explain how the wall is an economic barrier? Except for mules of drugs and human trafficking...I will give you that... ...why the hell can't they be LEGAL and come through Ellis Island like my late grandparents did, coming from Italy?......what's changed?.....two families with one raising 9 children and the other raising 4 with NO public assistance or "gimmes"...no riots asking for "MORE"......worked as many jobs as possible to make ends meet..... Edited October 21, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy
Brueggs Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...why the hell can't they be LEGAL and come through Ellis Island like my late grandparents did, coming from Italy?......what's changed?.....two families with one raising 9 children and the other raising 4 with NO public assistance or "gimmes"...no riots asking for "MORE"......worked as many jobs as possible to make ends meet..... I wish I had the answer. For some reason, we are the only country in the world where there is not an expectation not to protect our sovereignty 2
Recommended Posts