Mexican remittances head for new record

Financial Times.com ^ | August 26, 2004 | By John Authers

[cdrw]

Be careful where you lay blame. The baby boomers did not create the situation nor does their lack of savings make the situation worse. The problem was created in the post-depression socialist developments that lead to the SS program in the first place and in the way our congress has managed its budget since then. It is the population bulge that makes it difficult to balance the books. The problem is inherent in any generational transfer of wealth and is being experienced throughout the industrialized world - even in Japan where their savings rates are WAY higher than here.

Baby boomers spending habits have no effect on their eligibility for SS in the future. Their free choice not to save simply means they will be living at or near the poverty level in retirement. Nobody's SS payments are more than just barely enough to survive on.

I am personally on the boundary between the boom and those who are walking behind the horses at the parade. Keep a couple things in mind as you think about this issue:

a) The baby boombers have been paying taxes their entire lives and have every right to expect a return on that investment. Why would the boomers forgo their return so that you can pay less taxes than they did?

b) The boomers are huge in number and they vote. They greatly out number you so it is exceedingly unlikely they will ever be "cut off cold".


One idea I have had - not well thought out - as to why our government refuses to stem the flow of immigrants. It is a way to create a population boom where one will not occur otherwise. A population boom now may be just what the social security system needs 30-40 years from now. Demographic studies have clearly shown that economic booms follow population booms in the US.

Now before everyone flames me back to the stone age ... I understand the financial burdens and social displacement the immigration wave is creating. It is NOT being handled well and I absolutely do not agree with how its being done. It is also clear that our political parties are just pandering for votes. But there is also a VERY CLEARLY HUGE constituency of citizens out there who would quickly vote for anyone willing to shut down the flow. The republicans could easily make a successful issue out of it and move to seal the borders under existing law. It should be a huge political advantage.

So why don't they do it? I have this sneaking suspicion that somewhere in the depths of the Federal reserve and the Executive branch policy making bureaucracy there is a strategy report / mindset that says 'if we don't make the population grow we are going to collapse under our own weight'. They may be gambling that immigrants have kids who then have kids ... and lots of those people end up paying SS taxes.

As I said - not well thought out or researched. And if its true it then tossing the whole Mexican economy onto SS makes no sense at all.

Just a thought.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: 'if we don't make the population grow we are going to collapse under our own weight'.

Yes, I believe that is a prime argument for immigration.

But coming up fast on our blind side is Bhagwati's World Migration Organization (reply #35). Look at the various countries' Diaspora policies. Mexico and India have led the way.

Borderless (former?) nations like the U.S. and European countries are not the same as nations beyond borders, like Mexico and India.

Mexico's citizens and U.S. citizens connected to Mexico by family are encouraged to remain loyal to Mexico. The concept of immigration may be passing. Guest workers in host countries owing allegiance to and paying taxes to the home country may be the future.

[cdrw]

I'm having difficulty locating detailed information on the "World Migration Organization" other than brief references to it in articles. It appears Bhagwati wrote an article for Foreign Affairs but I cant get the whole thing since I don't subscribe.

If you have a link to specifics I will definitely take a look.

There is no doubt that the world is clamoring to avail themselves of our markets and social programs. The markets I consider fair game (other than strategic concerns) but the idea that education, medical care ... are human rights is absurd. As far as I'm concerned there is no "human right" that places a burden of charity on others. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to seek employment, freedom of religion ... these are human rights. Freedom to receive whatever social assistance as is necessary to 'fully develop ones personality', as spelled out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not a human right at all but a manifesto for global wealth redistribution a la Marx and his buddies.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Freedom to receive whatever social assistance as is necessary to 'fully develop ones personality', as spelled out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not a human right at all but a manifesto for global wealth redistribution a la Marx and his buddies."

Thanks for the reference to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When was the last time anyone in our ruling class from either Party's mainstream said "inalienable rights?" They always say "human rights." A little googling reveals that inalienable rights often "interfere" with a government's ability to deliver on "human" rights. Inalienable rights are not popular with the world's ruling classes.

I had two sources for info on the WMO. Though not implemented yet I have read that the U.N. has given its blessings.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/jmoss/resources/635_pdf/No_35_bhagwati.pdf http://gurusonline.tv/uk/conteudos/bhagwati.asp

The pdf file appears to be there, the other source is gone.

It is the corrupt government of Mexico -- especially Fox -- that screams the loudest about "human" rights for its citizens in the U.S. Fox, et al. have demanded "human" rights in speeches here in the U.S.

If you have not already take a look at Mexican home town associations.