The Long Road to Residency

[Timshel]

I think that a retaliatory trade policy that took into account the practices of the countries we're dealing with would produce all-around lower trade barriers in the long run. If we just abolish all trade protections, no matter what the other countries do, they'll just engage in policies designed to exploit that, and we'll have no bones to encourage them to lower their own trade protections.

How will they exploit it? By punishing their own consumers or subsidizing ours?

The only protections needed are for those goods of strategic interest. We can ensure that by simply requiring the use of domestic supply in the production of the weapons of war.

 

[Good Luck]

Focusing on the barriers to legal immigration as the cause for illegal immigration is like saying barriers to making money is the cause of theft. Well, yes. If there were fewer immigration laws fewer people would violate them. But that is assuming that our economy can handle a much larger influx of immigrants. Maybe at one time we could. But at 300 million and growing rapidly, the population of the U.S. is starting to see the limit of how many we can support without starting to see a much worse degradation in our expected standard of living. Between exporting skilled and manufacturing jobs and importing scores of people for whom minimum wage is wealth, the average American Worker is being squeezed between a rock and a hard place.

As much as it would be nice to accept any and all who want to become U.S. citizens, the practicality is we cannot afford it unless we want to end up with an economy little better than the nations they are coming from.

Of note is the fact that few nations - including our European (to some) role models - have immigration policies as open as ours are already. Maybe there is a reason other countries have more barriers than we do?

 

[Good Luck]

How will they exploit it? By punishing their own consumers or subsidizing ours?

The only protections needed are for those goods of strategic interest. We can ensure that by simply requiring the use of domestic supply in the production of the weapons of war.

They exploit it by using our free trade policies to make it easy for us to import their goods while using restrictions making it difficult for us to export our goods to them. It results in even worse trade imbalances than we already have. Like any other type of debt except internal debt, such is not indefinitely sustainable. And our children and grandcchildren will be the ones to pay the price.

 

[Timshel]

One question. Why is the consumer more important than capital or labor? Allowing labor from anywhere that will work for any wage is not always beneficial to the consumer anyhow. Studies in the late 80's and early 90's showed that cars made in factories in Mexico for a lower hourly rate were sold at prices as if they had been constructed by UAW labor, passing the profits on to the stock holders. The consumers benefited not a wit, and US wages were hurt.

What study?

If that labor were allowed to move here and join with domestic labor it is likely the plants would have stayed and labor would have received higher wages than in Mexico. Instead the barrier to immigration encouraged capital to move across the border where they could pay lower wages. Virtually every penny of those wages are lost from our local economies.

The status quo, where capital can move but labor can not, encourages businesses to move away from the many benefits that an American location may offer. Some of the benefits are due to differences in government (i.e., greater stability in property rights and due process). Other advantages may just be a more efficient location for supply of raw materials and the distribution of finished goods. Attempts to artificially inflate domestic wages just ends in the business moving out.

You can use that to justify more and more restrictions, just as the government does in so many areas. But, again, in the end the only ones who will benefit from such arrangements are those in unproductive fields, i.e., the bureaurats and the criminals.

Why is the consumer more important than labor or capital? It is not. Capital and labor are not forced to offer their goods at any price. They choose whether the price is sufficient and are free to bargain for the best price. If consumers are arbitrarily limited in bargaining then they are unable to maximize utility value and wealth is lost.

The field of consumers is rarely ever dominated by one buyer or a union of buyers that may abuse a monopoly/monopsony position. Capital joins to form corporations, while labor joins to form unions, both of which improve their bargaining power. There are rarely any effective consumer unions. Capital and labor are already preferred, which is why they are, occasionally, able to pass trade barriers over the interest of consumers.

 

[Timshel]

They exploit it by using our free trade policies to make it easy for us to import their goods while using restrictions making it difficult for us to export our goods to them. It results in even worse trade imbalances than we already have. Like any other type of debt except internal debt, such is not indefinitely sustainable. And our children and grandcchildren will be the ones to pay the price.

So, a combination of subsidizing our consumers and punishing theirs. If they artificially make their products cheaper they are only subsidizing our consumers. If they artificially make our products more expensive then they punish their consumers. Their people will not benefit, just their governments.

 

[Timshel]

Tit for tat trade wars are completely stupid. It amounts to one nation threatening to do harm to their own citizens in response to another nation doing harm to their own citizens. It would be like our government telling another that if they don't stop torturing their citizens we will respond by torturing ours.

 

[Timshel]

Focusing on the barriers to legal immigration as the cause for illegal immigration is like saying barriers to making money is the cause of theft.

It is. That is, the thief balances the cost of stealing versus work or trade and chooses stealing. But laws against theft are completely different than a law against movement across a border for practical and moral reasons.

Theft is unproductive and is destructive of wealth. It is also a taking of the victim's justly acquired property and a violation of their rights. The fact is, you are arguing the equivalent of theft.

Well, yes. If there were fewer immigration laws fewer people would violate them.

The law does not serve a useful purpose. As mentioned, investigations into the validity of a marriage have nothing to do with whether a person will make a good citizen. One can pass the test while possessing undesirable traits or fail while possessing nothing but those traits desired in a citizen. The test is fucking useless (not to mention offensive) and all it does is create jobs for bureaurats.

But that is assuming that our economy can handle a much larger influx of immigrants. Maybe at one time we could. But at 300 million and growing rapidly, the population of the U.S. is blah blah blah

The same bullshit anti-immigration and anti-trade have been arguing for hundreds of years. The rules have not changed. Immigration and free trade are good for our nation.

 

[Lao Tse]

Tit for tat trade wars are completely stupid. It amounts to one nation threatening to do harm to their own citizens in response to another nation doing harm to their own citizens. It would be like our government telling another that if they don't stop torturing their citizens we will respond by torturing ours.

Actually, the opposite dynamic applies. In your dark vision, states degrade workers rights by a plethora of means to lure investment dollars from multinational corporations. Borders are explicitly meant to protect the labor markets to avoid the globalization race to the bottom the internationalist fascicst prefer. No matter how often you repeat your globalization mantras they will never become moral. Business takes place within a moral context.

 

[Lao Tse]

Borders are real. not artificial. the protections they provide economically and otherwise are an instrinsic value of their existence. Citizens died to defend them and all they stand for, and provide.

 

[Liberty]

Borders are real. not artificial. the protections they provide economically and otherwise are an instrinsic value of their existence. Citizens died to defend them and all they stand for, and provide.

My dad died blowing the heads off communists in Korea.

My uncle died blowing the heads off communists in Veitnam.

My grandfather came back from europe after he had blown the heads off a bunch of socialist.

AssHatZombie, I'm new here. Are you a Marxist?

 

[Lao Tse]

My dad died blowing the heads off communists in Korea.

My uncle died blowing the heads off communists in Veitnam.

My grandfather came back from europe after he had blown the heads off a bunch of socialist.

AssHatZombie, I'm new here. Are you a Marxist?

No. Im just not a globalist brainwash victims. government is supposed to conduct trade policy for the general wellbeing of the populace of the nation. When the middle class is being destroyed for the short term gain of corpations. there is a problem. Trade deficits suck all the wealth from a nation overtime.

Even from a nation security perspective, it's unwise to have your national supply lines from all over the globe, possibly susceptible to disruption by enemies. independance has tactical value, and also facilitates self-determination, instead of global governance.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My dad died blowing the heads off communists in Korea.

My uncle died blowing the heads off communists in Veitnam.

My grandfather came back from europe after he had blown the heads off a bunch of socialist.

AssHatZombie, I'm new here. Are you a Marxist?

Naaa AHZ is just a garden variety paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[Lao Tse]

Unless the border in question is Israel's, right, Gruppenführer?

You're right? Why are borders fine for israel but wrong for everyone else?

Is it more jew hypocrisy? looks like it.

 

[Timshel]

Actually, the opposite dynamic applies. In your dark vision, states degrade workers rights by a plethora of means to lure investment dollars from multinational corporations. Borders are explicitly meant to protect the labor markets to avoid the globalization race to the bottom the internationalist fascicst prefer. No matter how often you repeat your globalization mantras they will never become moral. Business takes place within a moral context.

Borders to immigration, alone hurt labor. The only reason they would take some low paying job in Mexico building cars is because they can't come here and get a low paying job doing just about anything. It's not just pay that they come here for but the blessings of liberty and the rule of law.

Mexico is a shithole. I would not want to live there if you increased my salary. Why would anyone want to stay for lower pay?

Borders are for the purpose of figuring out who the local government/gang may tax and to establish where neighboring governments/gangs may not pass. When they restrict the flow of individuals and trade they violate the rights of the individual. This is true between municipalities, states or nations. Restrictions also, inevitably lead to more conflict as the neighboring states become estranged and have little shared interests. If our states were ran with these restrictions to migration and trade we would have had numerous civil wars.

It's bad economics, it's immoral and your national socialist bullshit has never been anything but a colossal failure. You are the fascist. You support their policies and make the same arguments. You even have similar conspiracy theories concerning Jews, nAHZi.

 

[Lao Tse]

Borders to immigration, alone hurt labor. The only reason they would take some low paying job in Mexico building cars is because they can't come here and get a low paying job doing just about anything. It's not just pay that they come here for but the blessings of liberty and the rule of law.

Mexico is a shithole. I would not want to live there if you increased my salary. Why would anyone want to stay for lower pay?

Borders are for the purpose of figuring out who the local government/gang may tax and to establish where neighboring governments/gangs may not pass. When they restrict the flow of individuals and trade they violate the rights of the individual.

Contrarily, they protect the rights of the citizen. Protecting labor markets has been a purpose for borders in all modern states. why are there quotas on the books? A plethora of reasons, one of which is protecting labor markets. It's telling you think they function for thugs only. That really is your attitude. You believe the purpose of government is to stop the population from allowing internationalist fascists to lower the standard of living in a covert act of olam ha ba war.

This is true between municipalities, states or nations. Restrictions also, inevitably lead to more conflict as the neighboring states become estranged and have little shared interests. If our states were ran with these restrictions to migration and trade we would have had numerous civil wars.

It's bad economics, it's immoral and your national socialist bullshit has never been anything but a colossal failure. You are the fascist. You support their policies and make the same arguments. You even have similar conspiracy theories concerning Jews, nAHZi.

We could teach mexico how to de-cronify it's economy an have growth, instead of allowing their economic refugees to drive down wages for our workers. Your point of view is fascist and destructive, and frankly, ignorant.

 

[Lao Tse]

Stingfield, you you're not just going to talk us out of the various protections of sovereignty that are in place against your New World Order. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Good Luck]

So, a combination of subsidizing our consumers and punishing theirs. If they artificially make their products cheaper they are only subsidizing our consumers. If they artificially make our products more expensive then they punish their consumers. Their people will not benefit, just their governments.

DUH! You think their governments are benevolent? Many of the countries with which we have free trade make no illusion about caring one whit about their people. Others may give lip service to the people, but, like our own government, miss the benevolence mark by a few miles when it comes to practice.

And it's not like other countries need to make their products ARTIFICIALLY cheaper. They are cheaper because they do not have the relative expenses our manufacturing faces, from higher wages to meeting safety regulations, eco regulations, etc. The idea that manufacturing companies are moving outside the U.S. because of IMMIGRATION policies is laughable. Sure, cheap labor is one attraction - which they would NOT get if we relaxed immigration laws - instead of paying $2.50/hr with no taxes or bennies under the table they'd be paying $7.25/hr plus taxes and associated labor costs. The more we try to protect illegal immigrants, or ease them into legal status, the more manufacturing will stay across the border. But there are many other ways having to do with various types of regulations that moving manufacturing out of country makes it cheaper, too.

Of course, all too often the results of avoiding those regulations results in things like contaminated medicines, lead base paint on toys, or toxic paint on drinking glasses. Good show, free trade. Let's add free immigration to the mix and REALLY fuck over our grandkids.

 

[Timshel]

Your newspeak bullshit won't cover you. You are clearly the fascist. In nearly every meaningful way you agree with the failed fascists states of the past and even in some not so meaningful ways (hatred of Jews). You talk about brainwashing but you show all the signs of skinhead/neonazi "brainwashing." You share their desire to isolate themselves from the impure and share all their paranoid delusions.

 

[Lao Tse]

Your newspeak bullshit won't cover you. You are clearly the fascist. In nearly every meaningful way you agree with the failed fascists states of the past and even in some not so meaningful ways (hatred of Jews). You talk about brainwashing but you show all the signs of skinhead/neonazi "brainwashing." You share their desire to isolate themselves from the impure and share all their paranoid delusions.

Newspeak? You're the one claiming that borders no longer exist, and that immigration quotas have no reason for existence.

your internationlist fascist bullshit is just a bad case of epic fail. The nation rejects you.

 

[Good Luck]

The same bullshit anti-immigration and anti-trade have been arguing for hundreds of years. The rules have not changed. Immigration and free trade are good for our nation.

You are right about one thing: the rules have NOT changes. You just are dead wrong what the rules are. Free trade can ONLY be good between nations which are on equal footing. But if one nation is significantly poorer, then the richer nation will lose by free trade. And if the poorer nation adds unequal barriers (therefore not being free trade) then it only gets worse.

And free immigration is NOT good (except for the immigrant - and then not always), no matter how much wishing tries to make it so. If you are so hot about making things better for Mexicans, go down there and work on making Mexico less of a shit hole, rather than trying to make the U.S. into one.