Posted on 02/17/2006 3:59:05 AM PST by Klickitat
So, it's the old apologists' argument again? Accept SNAFU just because it's SOP.
Revolutionary theories? More like plain-old horse sense. Just asking that the laws of our country and our Constitution be upheld. Pretty darned conservative, I'd say.
I'm sure I won't be testifying at any congressional hearings, so-forth. Don't really expect to get rich (although I'm glad I live in a society where I could pursue that aim if that's all I cared about). I'm just a plain-old citizen who's fed up with our laws not being enforced. So I'll vote my conscience come election time just like everyone else.
I did enjoy the debate. You argued your point well.
Cheers
Not just that, but it takes a good argument to penetrate through.
The author points out that the illegal immigration is not simply one of job seeking, but a nationalist movement, something perhaps your above mentioned conservatives didn't put much stock in.
With both gangsters and the Mexican military backing illegals across the border, it's more truely apparent that this is an assault on sovereignty.
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/unscharter.htm
I'm with you Robo
World War 3 anyone?
The Mexican invasion of the United States began decades ago as a spontaneous migration of ordinary Mexicans into the U.S. seeking economic opportunities. It has morphed into a campaign to occupy and gain power over our country—a project encouraged, abetted, and organized by the Mexican state and supported by the leading elements of Mexican society.
Are they both Legal? Do they belong to a Terrorist organization? Do either advocate the overthrow of the Country, or demand that their "territory" be returned?
Can you tell the difference? Because I have a certain document that suggests you are clueless...note entry numbers 2,4, and 5!
| The Al Qaeda Training Manual discovered in the UK: ------ "TWELFTH LESSON: ESPIONAGE " Information needed through covert means: Information needed to be gathered through covert means is of only two types: First: Information about government personnel, officers, important personalities, and all matters related to those (residence,work place, times of leaving and returning, wives and children, places visited) Second: Information about strategic buildings, important establishments, and military bases. Examples are important ministries such as those of Defense and Internal Security, airports, seaports, land border points, embassies, and radio and TV stations. --- Candidates for Recruitment Are: 1. Smugglers 2. Those seeking political asylum 3. Adventurers 4. Workers at coffee shops, restaurants, and hotels 5. People in need 6. Employees at borders, airports, and seaports http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html |
Meaning I'm with you on this and it took a motivated culture to build this country. ;)
Looks like you smoked out one more quisling.
Meaning some employers would rather not pay market-clearing wages. Funny how the free market suddenly ceases to operate when the wide open border is threatened.
If supply expands to meet a rise in demand, supply is elastic. If demand contracts to meet a fall in supply it is elastic.
If, in either case, supply or demand doesn't change, it is called inelastic. The domestic labor supply is an example of inelasticity. It doesn't expand to meet a rise in demand(higher wages). For several reasons.
First, it takes many years to produce a new worker.
Second, the birth rate has been depressed for 30-40 years.
Third, the labor supply is aging, so there are fewer and fewer workers to do the hard and dirty work.
Fourth, the labor supply is better educated and they don't have to do the hard and dirty. Additionally there are fewer and fewer educational drop-outs to do the hard and dirty .
So in this situation, a rising demand for domestic labor(higher wages) will not create and expanded supply.
First, Mohammed is not recruiting Lupe.
Second, you have posted some irrelevant document that lists recruitment candidates but leaves out the most significant candidate for recruitment.
Did you ever hear of Padilla?
Seriously, I'm positive that members of congress will be interested in how inflation is good.
Quisling: a synonym for traitor, someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
"Seriously, I'm positive that members of congress will be interested in how inflation is good." - That is your stated position, re: housing prices. I only stated that real-estate inflation is inevitable. We're just having a discussion, here. It's a bit off-topic, anyways. The real discussion here is border security.
Since you brought it back up, I'll go ahead and further explain my economic position.
SOME inflation is a necessary by-product for economic growth.
Greenspan and others hold the position that deflation is bad. It seems a small amount of inflation is actually one of the best indicators of a healthy economy. The logic is sound. A small amount of inflation means that demand is slightly ahead of supply, which triggers growth. If demand gets too far ahead of supply, then inflation ramps out of control leading to devaluation of the dollar. If supply exceeds demand, that leads to deflation. Deflation triggers recession.
We have consistently had annual real-estate inflation rates in the double-digits for a number of years. This is a boon to real-estate speculators. Buying and selling houses doesn't net any GDP, though. Long-term housing inflation leads to the devaluation of other markets, and stagnant growth in other sectors. We lose our industry and manufacturing capability due to deflationary pressures, and lack of investment capital. Short-term, we can simply import cheap goods from other countries. That only makes things worse by increasing overseas investment at the expense of domestic capital investment and R&D.
We want a net flow of capital coming into our country, not the other way around. A net outflow of capital results in building other nations' economies' at the expense of our own. Foreign capital investment in America is good. Foreign ownership of our land and businesses is bad. Providing our enemies with the means to wage military, social, or economic warfare upon us is foolish IMHO.
Long-term, it's a snowball-effect, leading to 3rd world conditions; i.e.-lower percentage of home-ownership, and shrinking wages vs. inflation,(the latter happened last year, the former will follow unless the trend is halted). At some point, the flow of capital out of the country will become severe enough that we will no longer be able to efficiently utilize our available workforce. That leads to losses in productivity. That leads to economic failure.
That's what we'll get if housing price increases keep outstripping wage-growth at current rates. IMHO, we're only a little off-course, here. Slowing population growth slightly via enforcing our immigration laws would help without the necessity for raising interest-rates. In a sustainable economy, real-estate prices should grow at about the same rate as population, when adjusted for inflation. Housing prices grow a little more slowly, consumer-goods prices grow a little more quickly. Same net-inflation, but with very different results.
OK - I'm done with the economic arguement. If I haven't gotten through, yet, it's probably not gonna happen.
Back to the original border problem:
1)Encourages criminal behavior
2)Has led to radical cultural changes
3)Raises our vulnerability to terrorist attack
4)Artificially inflates housing, and deflates wages for American citizens
5)Inflates medical costs due to non-paid care
6)Has contributed to the unchecked growth of an unassimilated sub-nation of foreign-nationals within our borders, with no allegiance to our country
which:
7)Has led to increased government spending on entitlements 8)Has increased civic costs due to the necessity for bilingual services
9)Causes decreasing educational ROI (accomodation of ESL students)
10)Creates the potential for social unrest and political destabilization
11)Enables the flow of contraband into our country
12)Encourages the growth of criminal gangs
13)Enables armed incursions upon our sovereign soil
14)Forces citizens to assimilate to a foreign culture, rather than vice-versa
15)Has increased pressure on law-enforcement agencies
16)Has destroyed the fabric of American communities
17)Violates our constitution by not providing defense from invasion (two states have formally declared a state-of-emergency)
You have made some impression on me. I agree that a mass-deportation would be reactionary rather than conservative. I've not changed my mind that the border needs to be defended first.
Offering amnesty without closing the border will simply encourage MOTS illegal immigration. We need to close the border first and stop the tidal wave. We can then document those who are here, and issue visas. We can gradually assimilate the ones who are already here, let the markets normalize more slowly and give businesses more time to adjust.
"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."
The argument is not about semantics. You are misusing the word inflation. Inflation pertains to the value of a currency. The only argument you could make about real estate and inflation is that inflation has led to the rising values. Your factual statement that real-estate values have gone up relative to the value of the dollar proves that the increase in real estate values is not the result of inflation.
"Increases in real estate values increase the overall wealth of Americans."
"Wrong again. (If I had a nickel for every time 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."
You are quite condescending for someone who doesn’t seem to understand the role real estate plays in the economy or the definition of wealth. Cash is not the only form of wealth. In fact, most of the world’s wealth is not cash. Real estate is a form of wealth. If people’s real estate goes up in value, then their wealth increases in the form of equity in that real estate. They can then refinance or take out a second mortgage in order to transfer that equity into cash. They do not need to sell the real estate in order to benefit from the increased value.
I will use a modified version of your example as an example. A home is purchased for $30K. Thirty years later that $30K mortgage is paid off. I will make a conservative estimate based on the general appreciation of homes in desirable areas on the east and west coasts and estimate the home is now worth $400K. The owner can now borrow $80K from the bank at a relatively low interest rate because of the favorable LTV ratio. The owner can take that $80K and use it as a down payment on another $400K home for their child, or a vacation home, or an investment home, or they can do home improvements; or they could invest in a new business; or they could just buy products they want or need. All of these things benefit the owner because they have more buying power and more options. (If you factor in inflation over the past 30 years in America, the $80K loan would be equivalent to a $20K loan 30 years ago; This means the new loan is more affordable than the first loan, and the owner is 30 years older so he or she probably has more resources to pay the new mortgage)
The economy is thus stimulated and strengthened by the increased supply of cash that is provided by the appreciation of real estate values. If people own property in an exceptionally hot market like south Florida or Vegas, then their buying power also becomes increased in some other regions’ real estate markets where the appreciation has not been as rapid.
"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."
The paragraphs above address these false assertions.
"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."
New homes account for about 20% of the homes bought and sold in the US. The price of new homes has a direct influence on the price of existing homes. If building costs go up, new home production comes down. This decreases the supply and increases the values. I am a real estate investor so I can tell you firsthand that you are greatly mistaken when you broadly state “only a very small portion of new housing cost is determined by (labor) wages.” The fact is that it depends greatly on the particular situation. Large portions of the developer’s costs can be caught up in legal fees in an area with tough zoning and environmental laws. A majority of the costs could be in purchasing the land for new homes built in prime locations. The cost of labor always plays a significant role in the cost of new housing. More expensive laborers build more expensive houses. Usually more expensive laborers build a higher quality houses. If you had your way more expensive laborers would build average quality homes that immigrants are building at a fraction of the price.
"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)."
Values would be up even more without the cheap labor because homebuilding would not be nearly as profitable, therefore builders would have fewer profits and less capital to invest in building more homes. This would increase the housing shortage and values. Then we really would have inflation.
"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."
First of all, I stated they are the recipe for another depression. I never stated that they caused the first depression, although they did play a role. Your oversimplification of the depression sounds like it was yanked out of some old textbook. Many factors lead to the event. You are the first person I’ve ever seen argue that the depression was not caused by economic policies.
Nice try, but elasticity isn't the issue, since the last time anyone looked in America there aren't assigned jobs and the labor force is free to move to where the money is.
Now, let me explain it in simpler terms so that you will have better understanding: Turn your page to "market clearing wages". Bid up wages and surprise, surprise, you get more people willing to do the work.
But then, those who have been making money by using illegals don't want to pay market wages. They prefer to insist that they deserve to have their labor force subsidized by the taxpaying public. Somehow they shouldn't be subject to the economic forces everyone else is, such as going out of business if they aren't competitive.
You have overlooked what may have been the largest factor of the Great Depression. Stock market panics and agricultural problems had occurred plenty of times before this. What made the Depression different was a collapse in the American banking system that began around 1930. 30% of the American money supply evaporated as small banks failed throughout the country. This was a deflationary event without parallel, and made the American recession far greater than that of the rest of the developed world.
Your problem ie that you try to make illegals something extradinary. They are simply more imported labor. Something to take up the slack while Congress hashes out the conflict over permenant versus temporary.
BTW, your phrase, "don't want to pay market wages, indicates that you are mixed up. The wages that illegals are paid, are market driven. OTOH, wages to guest workers are set by the govt, a prevailing wage. This is why so many H2A and H2B guest workers go awol, they can make more money as an illegal.
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.