Posted on 02/17/2006 3:59:05 AM PST by Klickitat
In a Platonic view, it's necessary to keep a stratified order in which those who don't earn their way can stay in power. The collective (as defined by the few who decide that they are "golds" and we poor masses are "bronzes") is the priority
In an Aristotelian view, it's necessary for the individual to be personally accountable and to heck with unearned authority or advantage. Thus if a person earns his way to success -- that's the determinant. But there must still be buy in to the "guilt".
They come here because their leaders are like Plato-- coming from the elites, but offering nothing and being on the brink of falling into the chasm. Hence the elites are more desperate to hold on to the power that they have.
They come here for the benefits of liberty and indivu
:p Preview is my friend. Sorry.
Post was supposed to stop at the 3rd paragraph
I will be hiding under my desk
I'm with you, brother.
Or is it, the Second Mexican Revolution? What I see is that a great many immigrants from Mexico want to become, and do become real Americans. Then, there are the rabble, both back in Mexico and embedded among the immigrants up here, who are of the envious, anti capitalist, bitter ilk. They would love nothing more than to overturn both the weak establishment of Mexico and the stronger one of the US. They are a clear and present danger.
Wages rise... hmmm... you mean businesses have to compete to attract legal citizens instead of just importing illegal workers. Competition leads to technical innovation. Innovation leads to increases in productivity.
Where C=available capital W=available workforce E= societal efficiency (technology, level of education, hours worked per person, et c.,.)
C x W x E = National GDP.
Standard of living = GDP/W.
You would suggest that the only way to increase the GDP is by increasing W. That is a logical fallacy. Our population, W, is currently in no danger of declining. The population where I live is exploding.
Productivity has been rising quite nicely. Real wages, however, were down last year. Wasn't because of a labor shortage. It's because our E factor isn't going up. There's no competitive pressure between domestic companies for it to go up due to the flood of cheap labor.
Point is, an expanding economy gives no net gain to the average citizen if it's purely a factor of population growth. The only way to increase our standard of living is through innovation. Inflation will never stop altogether. It's a product of expanding world population and scarcity of resources. An expanding national population will inevitibly lead to further inflation in housing prices.
PS - Why is it your set considers inflation bad, except when it's housing inflation? Please illuminate this poor ignorant soul. I tend to run on common sense, which runs contrary to most of what you're selling.
Forgot one point...
The other reason for a decline in the overall standard of living is the fact that our government spending is increasing relative to our GDP.
As for business competing to attract legal citizens(I guess you mean workers?), the domestic labor supply is inelastic. It doesn't make any difference how much an employer raises wages, there are only so many workers available, that is why it is inflationary. The exception to this is that over a couple of generations of high birth rate, the labor supply would rise.
As for your statement regarding the population, I can only suggest you take a look at the demographic data. Compare the birth rate to the immigration rate. Notice how the mean age is rising. Etc,Etc.
The US has a long, successful history of importing its economic underclass, don't look for that to change.
"The US has a long, successful history of importing its economic underclass, don't look for that to change."
They can get in line and come in the same way my forebears did; legally (save the Cherokee part of my lineage which migrated prior to formal immigration policy).
The labor supply is not inelastic. Legal immigration and reproduction see to that. A certain amount of legal immigration is part of our American heritage.
I believe that the recent tidal wave of illegal immigration is stifling innovation. With an infinite supply of cheap labor, where is the incentive to spend capital on R&D, uptraining, education? There is none. It's easier to just hire another illegal. This is no different than slave-owners claiming we would fail without slavery. What happened? The industrial revolution. Not bad, eh?
Whatever happened to American ingenuity? The overall goal is a better standard of living for all American citizens willing to work. That will not happen with unchecked immigration.
I never stated that inflation was good. Only inevitable for real-estate. They just aren't making any more of that. In your economic view, the best way to combat inflation is to increase man-hours worked. What a bore. If you have more people here clamoring for goods, you'll still have inflation because demand increases. Supply AND demand.
There are only 2 net ways to combat inflation: increasing productivity per man-hour worked, or importing cheaper goods from overseas. I do support some responsible international trade. I think we ought-not be trading with our enemies. On a long enough timeline, overseas trade is only a temporary fix, anyways.
Population increases INFLATE housing prices. It's the most vital human need next to food (actually faith is first in my book, but I'm trying to confine this to a secular discussion), and the cost is going through the roof. Sure, DVD players are cheaper... So what?
Greenspan's policies have kept consumer goods prices from rising too fast, but how about housing? Housing prices have skyrocketed over the last 25 years. Yes, the percentage of home ownership has increased, but how much of that can be explained away by the aging population? Why does your set not consider housing inflation negative? (I'm not just talking rhetoric, here. I'll save that for the next paragraph. I'd acually like to see the breakdown.)
The problem I find with most economists is that they have traded their god in for a golden idol. Their economic policies are OK but do not factor in human beings as anything more than potential GDP. For me the preservation of our culture, heritage, and the security of our citizens against foreign enemies comes first. I fail to see how rampant illegal immigration has any defensible position in this regard.
I have no objection to anyone entering the US, if they do so legally and if they do so with the intention of obeying our laws and customs.
I do have an objection to anyone entering illegally or entering legally with the intention of setting up some sort of disaffected colony that could be used change the nature of the United States.
Immigration ping
Not true. They came because they will get better pay than in Mexico. And medical care and more ...
Very few people are motivated by the desire of liberty.
Exactly
I knew if I stayed with you long enough, you would reveal your real motivation. Cultural!
"I believe that the recent tidal wave of illegal immigration is stifling innovation. With an infinite supply of cheap labor, where is the incentive to spend capital on R&D, uptraining, education? There is none. It's easier to just hire another illegal. This is no different than slave-owners claiming we would fail without slavery. What happened? The industrial revolution. Not bad, eh?"
"Greenspan's policies have kept consumer goods prices from rising too fast, but how about housing? Housing prices have skyrocketed over the last 25 years. Yes, the percentage of home ownership has increased, but how much of that can be explained away by the aging population? Why does your set not consider housing inflation negative? (I'm not just talking rhetoric, here. I'll save that for the next paragraph. I'd acually like to see the breakdown.)"
Housing prices have appreciated not inflated. Housing cannot "inflate." Inflation only applies to currency. Inflation of the US dollar does increase housing prices, but much of the housing has increased at a rate much greater than the rate of inflation for reasons that don't have anything to do with inflation. Increases in real estate values increase the overall wealth of Americans. Everyone who owns real estate benefits. The growing real estate values have brought a great deal of capital into the economy because people are taking money out of their homes and spending it.
I agree that we need to reform immigration policy. I would like to see Bush do more to protect the borders, but I agree with Bush's plan to bring these people into our country legally to provide businesses with the labor they need. If you think housing is expensive now you would not be pleased with the values if we didn't have the cheap labor to build the houses. Isloationist economic policies are the recipe for another depression.
"I knew if I stayed with you long enough, you would reveal your real motivation. Cultural!"
Yep, I'm a Cultural Conservative. Proud of it, too. Preserving our way of life for myself and my progeny is certainly part of why I'm in favor of defending our borders and reforming our illegal immigration enforcement.
I'm also a fiscal conservative. Illegal immigration is leading to increased government spending for entitlements.
I also believe in preserving the liberties guaranteed to citizens of this country under the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Having a large percentage of unassimilated foreign nationals from a single country is a threat to our values and sovereignty.
I'm also a Christian. Oh, and a capitalist(just not in cases where it is detrimental to our security, liberty, and sovereignty).
For me, being able to afford a house is more important than having access to cheap knick-knacks and restaurant food. I would also like my progeny to have the same opportunities this nation has provided me.
I also believe that our American way of life as defined by our founding fathers, our laws and the borders of our country are worth defending.
I believe my culture, values and intelligence are being insulted on a daily basis by the MSM and the elites in Washington. I'm also a big Teddy Roosevelt fan.
I can also see that everytime in our history that the supply of cheap labor has slowed, our private sector has responded with innovation to take better advantage of the available workforce.
Open borders and illegal immigration are bad for our country culturally and econimically. It's also a huge security risk. Those are my biases. That's my agenda.
What is your agenda?
I've provided at least 3 good reasons why blanket-amnesty is bad, and closing the borders is good.
The only argument you've made so far for amnesty is increasing GDP. Increasing GDP only through increasing man-hours-worked provides no net increase to standard of living. It also provides negative motivation for innovation, thereby retarding future gains to our standard of living. It also increases inflationary pressures in the housing market.
Care to refute that?
"Housing prices have appreciated not inflated. Housing cannot "inflate." Inflation only applies to currency."
Semantics only. Prices have risen faster than consumer goods, so one could theoretically exchange their shelter for more consumables. Housing prices relative to income and relative to the value of the dollar have gone up. They have, therefore, inflated.
"Increases in real estate values increase the overall wealth of Americans."
Wrong again. (If I had a nickel for everytime someone spouted this dogma...) If you buy a house for $30K and sell it for $100K, you have a theoretical profit. But if it would still cost you the entire $100K to replace the house you just sold, you haven't generated any wealth. There is no net gain. It's a financial shell-game.
"Everyone who owns real estate benefits."
Depends on whether or not you'd like to exchange your shelter for consumables. If so, then yes. If not, then no (see above paragraph for explanation). I would amend this to say 'ONLY those who own real estate benefit'. And generally ONLY those who own a piece of property other than their primary residence. For a prospective home-buyer, the inflated market is not a benefit.
"If you think housing is expensive now you would not be pleased with the values if we didn't have the cheap labor to build the houses."
This would apply only to new housing as there is no labor cost tied-up in an existing residence. Only a very small portion of new housing cost is determined by wages. The lion's share of the cost of a new house is land, raw materials, cost-of-sales, utilities, and developer profits.
I can only speak from anecdotal experience on this where I live. 15 years ago, about 95% of home construction labor was performed by American citizens. Now 75% is done by illegal aliens. Prices have still gone through the roof. Cheap labor has not offset the inflationary pressure of increased demand due to population gains, and scarcity of resources regarding real-estate (they're just not making much land these days).
"Isloationist economic policies are the recipe for another depression."
Economic policies did not cause the Great Depression. That was caused by the combination of an over-valued stock market and poor agricultural practices. There was NO labor shortage during the depression.
There is a demographic reality today that you are going to have to accept. There is also a demograpic reality 20-25 years down the road that younger people of today will have to accept when that time arrives. There is a demographic reality 50 years down the road that even younger people of today will have to accept.
As for the cultural aspects and our heritage, I can tell you that I am descended from William Bradford. We started this country as a white, anglo-saxon, protestant nation. Thru the years, and because of immigration, the original culture and heritage has changed. So if the culture and heritage changes further, so what.
"What are you going to do when the worker to retiree ratio reaches 2 to 1?"
Aaahhh... So I'm supposed to sacrifice my personal economic interests to support the retirees? Now we have your real agenda. Socialism!
I propose we keep government spending fixed in relation to GDP. Looks like the boomers should have planned better for their retirement.
"Without this, the EU would quickly overtake the US. Have you seen the economic models of that?"
Take your pick. Increased overall GDP, or a better standard of living with a lower population and a GDP that expands a little more slowly. I'll take the better standard of living, thank you very much.
"Thru the years, and because of immigration, the original culture and heritage has changed. So if the culture and heritage changes further, so what."
And undoubtedly we will build upon this fine heritage as time goes by. What does a huge number of unassimilated immigrants who do not share our values or heritage, and care nothing for it, contribute? I really don't care to have their language and culture shoved down my throat.
As for your economic arguments, they defy accepted arguments. Which means, you could get rich by publishing your revolutionary theories, maybe. Or, that Congress is anxiously awaiting your testimony during committee hearings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.