On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:14:30 +0000, Bruce wrote:
I don't have to admit that wealth is a zero sum game! Are you trying to
say that there will be no more wealth in the world in the future and that
the current total wealth in the world today has always been the same in
the past? This is the traditional argument used to justify punishing
those nasty rich people. Wealth is not a constant and a win is possible
for anyone willing to take a risk and work at what they believe in - and
not necessarily at the expense of someone else unless that some else
can't/won't adapt to the competition.
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
That's assuming they have jobs so they can buy those
goods/services. What if they're not "remaining employees"?
You say "competition is global" as if that were a given. It
doesn't have to be. We can bar the doors and only participate
in global trade for those things we can't produce (imports) and
things other countries can't produce (exports).
That may or may not be a good way to go, but it IS possible.
Great. Now what level of unemployment/underemployment do you
find acceptable? 10%? 25%? 75%? Everybody but you? There is a
point where we're no longer a market that anyone cares about,
just another bunch of starving peasants.
This has NEVER happened on any scale in this country. While
indivdual people have financial difficulties, the aggregate
of the nation has been a fairly consistent level of employment,
notwithstanding economic strains and layoffs.
Not unless you want to destroy the entire US economy. If we lock
the trade doors into the country, then foreign competitors will trade
with each other at a noticeable advantage to our cost stucture.
Moreover, global trade IS a given. We cannot possibly maintain our
current standard of living (never mind grow it) without imports.
Our energy needs alone mandate this.
Failing to participate openly in a global market would essential
destory generations of US economic growth, so, no, its not an option.
Absent some huge singularity like war on our soil, a nuclear holocaust,
or a totalitarian regime' in power, you will never get this level
of unemployment, at least not for very long. Market, left to their
own devices, correct *as**they**go*. The individual corrections
can be painful, but they are bearable. Contrast this with what happens
when government meddles in economic matters. The markets still correct,
they just do it *all at once* which is usually NOT bearable.
Take the Depression for example. The markets were correcting for way too
much outstanding leverage (loans) in the financial markets. There is
considerable evidence that this would have been over sooner had that
raging socialist FDR stayed out of the discussion. Instead, he moved
the country into becoming a welfare-state, slowed down the recovery
that was already underway, and forever doomed us to a more inefficient
economy than we could have.
Large scale unemployment and economic ruin are the hallmarks of economies
managed by fraud and/or force, almost always at the hands of government.
Prosperity and growth are the hallmarks of private sector voluntary
cooperation with a strong profit motive.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
|Large scale unemployment and economic ruin are the hallmarks of economies
|managed by fraud and/or force, almost always at the hands of government.
|Prosperity and growth are the hallmarks of private sector voluntary
|cooperation with a strong profit motive.
Tim, I have read your stuff with interest. You are clearly a smart
guy and for the most part I agree, if only in principle, with almost
all you have written.
But since you bring up fraud and government (redundant?), I would like
your take on the massive economic fraud being perpetrated on the US
worker by the tidal wave of illegal aliens, most specifically those
from Latin America.
I happen to live in Tucson, which has the dubious distinction of now
being the most crime-ridden city in the union, thanks in large part to
the presence of wetbacks--err--illegal aliens, undocumented migrant
workers, illegal entrants, border crossers or whatever term du jour
they are called today.
Our national parks and wilderness areas are being ruined by wetbacks,
our hospital trauma centers are closing because of the costs of
treating wetbacks injured in car crashes while fleeing from the Border
Patrol and we are at risk while driving down an interstate highway
because wetback smugglers are now having running gun battles on the
highway. (Four killed on I-10 a month or so ago) BTW, it is published
Border Patrol policy to *not* arrest these people until *after* they
have received their medical care. Thus the local taxpayers and legal
patients are responsible for the costs, rather that the federal
government. Free market in action, eh?
The Hispanic apologists and "activists" (how do you get to be an
activist? Where do I apply?) say that the wetbacks are taking only
those jobs that citizens will not take. Of course, that is completely
wrong---they are taking jobs that citizens will not take at the
depressed wage brought about by the illegal activity. We also hear
that the wetbacks contribute more in taxes than they receive in
benefits, which is also absurd, since much of their labor is paid for
in cash and is definitely "off the books."
We have articles in our newspapers wherein building contractors admit
to breaking the law by hiring wetbacks because, "Otherwise, we
couldn't be competitive and the price of housing would go up." Sounds
good huh, until you think about it. If none of the contractors used
illegal labor, they would all be on the same level playing field. And
so what it the initial price of the house goes up. The buyer only
pays for the house once; he gets to pay the increased property taxes
need to provide the medical care, education, and other welfare
benefits for the wetbacks and their kids forever.
This "in sourcing" is going to be the ruination of our economy and way
of life long before outsourcing does. And this is the fault of a
corrupt government that turns a blind eye to enforcement of the law in
a flagrant pandering for "Hispanic votes."
I have several responses to this:
1) Any nation has a responsibility to protect its borders and the citizens
within them. It it precisely because the US Government is so busy
doing what it should NOT (meddling with the internal social order
and lives of its citizens) that it does not do what it SHOULD
(controlling the borders and illegal immigration).
2) Immigration, is GOOD for our nation. It provides cheap labor, in
most cases for work no other American actually wants to do. It is
literally true that parts of US agribusiness could not survive without
cheap Mexican labor. This internal competition is healthy for
the same reason that outsourcing is - it drives the economy to
be increasingly efficient. Yes, Mexican labor depresses
wages. But for what jobs? Manual labor, entry-level blue collar
jobs, and such are the usual targets because they require minimal
skills. The fact that someone will come here and do them for
half the price of an American tells me that the American worker
expects too much for such work, not that the Mexicans are screwing
3) That said, *illegal* immigration is a disaster. Without some checks
and balances to see who is coming and and making sure they leave
when they are supposed to, we have at the very least an enormous
national security problem. It is now reported that likely terrorists
are infiltrating the US via the very same SW borders because of our
stupid policies in this matter.
4) The primary reason you see what you do in your part of the country
is because of all the Do Gooders in public life who think we owe
everyone else something, whether they've earned it or not. These
Do Gooders (they come from both the political Right and Left)
believe that the government should mandate minimum wages, feed people,
educate them, care for their health, and generally be everyone's mommy.
They do this because they know that the bigger government gets, the
more everyone will depend upon them, and thus the more power they will
accrue for themselves. Their lax attitudes on illegal immigrants stems
from the fact that they cynically want to prepare the way for the
next generation of advocates for Big Government. Illegal immigrants
have legal children in this country, and that's what the Professional
Government Mooching Enforcers are counting on for votes in 20 years.
5) This is easy enough to fix, but the American people, as a group, are
too dimwitted and badly educated (by those fine public schools we
all pay for) to do what is needed here. Laws need to be changed
in the following manner:
a) US law enforcement should have the unrestricted right to shoot
anyone who attempts to cross our borders when challenged for ID.
This is the same thing as you having the right to shoot someone
invading your home. Reasonable warning should be required, but
after that, the presumption should be that they are illegal and
trying to sneak in. It would take only a few such incidents,
and illegal crossings would vastly diminish.
b) Anyone here illegally who has a child should have that
child's US citizenship denied and both should be expelled from
the country without any appeals process once their illegality is
c) NO immigrant, legal or otherwise, should ever be eligible for
any US social services. You should have to be a citizen to
participate in the system. I speak as an immigrant myself
here. I proudly became a citizen the moment I was able to do
so. Anyone who emmigrates here and then refuses to become a
citizen should go home and stay there.
d) No civil laws should protect illegal immigrants. Only criminal
laws (which deal with force and threat) should be brought
to bear on their behalf. An illegal immigrant should never
be able to sue a doctor for malpractice, a hospital for not
granting service, and so on. They are **illegal** - they should
have absolutely minimal civil rights, as they would, say, under
the Geneva Convention for POWs.
e) The money wasted on our truly stupid drug laws should instead
be retargeted at maintaining full and active border control.
$30B a year or so buys a lot of border patrols, USCG water and
air management and so on. It might even help the hardcore
unemployed. Create a well-trained civil defense corp that works
full- or part-time in the portions of the country where the border
6) I live in a town with a huge Mexican population. I find these people
largely hard working, well intended, and generally good neighbors.
Well, the immigrant class is. Their children are spoiled brats, badly
behaved, and obnoxiously indulged - i.e., They are like most other
American kids who grew up with everything handed to them and
therefore appreciate nothing.
In the final analysis we all get what we ask for. Politicians get blamed,
but the truth is that they'll do what they have to in order to get/stay
in office. We The Sheeple keep telling them we want "more" from government.
We should instead tell them we want LESS - all we want them to do the
real job of government: to keep *us**free*. Until we as individuals
understand that our government's job is not to be everyone's (domestic
and foreign) Santa Claus, government will continue to abdicate its role
as the institution that preserves freedom, and instead will be in everyone's
shorts in matters personal, social, and behavioral.
Sadly, there is little hope that this will happen. The Sheeple have
discovered how to vote themselves largesse' and they appear to be
unwilling to turn back. This is not just a greasy-left-wing thing
either. The right-wing is just as bad, and the people who vote for them,
just a greasy. The only difference between left- and right-wing politics
is who gets screwed and who gets the benefit.
My family comes from a part of the world that witnessed what happens
when government is "in charge". God help us if we don't stop the slide
in that direction we are currently undertaking. From 1930-1932,
approximately 20 Million of my ethnic cousins were murdered by one man -
Stalin - because he was "doing what is good for the country."
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Security wise yes, but following your earlier arguments, allowing
unlimited numbers of immigrants would be a win-win.
Sounds more like religion than economics. I personally doubt that the
occupations are in most cases work than no other American actually wants
Could not survive? Wouldn't they adjust to the market? Sounds like gloom
You constantly assume that outsourcing is purely market driven. Bad
Lots of immigrants involved in skilled labor.
Minimum wage is a massive non-issue. Its a good indicator that the
criticism is religious rather than economic.
A long term plan for personal power?
The plot thickens...
I thought it was the constitution.
What about the rule of law? You sound like the mommy government types
who want to "send a message." Doesn't sound like any classical liberal I
have ever read, including Adam Smith. Since you've annointed him as the
"Father of Economics," perhaps you'll reveal why he is wrong (along with
dopey guys like T. Jefferson.
They said that about locking up pot smokers... actually they say that
about near every damn thing when they want to shoot or cage someone who
is viewed as an evildoer or part of a "problem."
Everyone, everywhere in America who has been alive long enough is an
illegal. Immigrants are the same.
Besides, appeals are part of the process to determine more definitely
that illegality exists.
There you go. You just outed yourself. Virtually all of the people who
want to move here are prohibited from becoming citizens. Rather than
deal with the issue, you foul the discussion with an attack that they
"refuse" to become citizens.
Are you really an immigrant or is that added for effect?
Sounds like you don't know what civil laws are or their relationship to
crime and criminal statutes or to the justice system as a whole.
Mmmmmm... good stuff, so someone like Bill Frist whose corporation
operated on people when they didn't need it could use these people for
medical experiments or perhaps just amusement and poor Jose's family
would have no redress.
Not only is it completely impractical, but it would shove it up the ass
of every citizen who travels overseas.
All right. Food, shelter, and medical treatment.
So immigrants and American parents generally are shitty parents. OK.
And you want to shoot immigrants for not providing their identity papers
quickly and eliminate the rule of law. You sound a bit like an admirer
of Stalin to me.
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion,
religious or political; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and
No. Allowing market forces to operate while maintaining border
security simultaneously would be a win-win.
Why? Because you said so? There is nothing religious about it.
Cheap labor drives economic growth. This is not to say it has no
other consquences. Clearly, it can. But it's not just some bit of
theology I invented.
Yes. That is better said. Certain agribusiness sectors could not
continue to exist in their current form. They might or might not
cease to exist entirely.
Everything is (ultimately) market driven. The only exception - that
is, when the market does NOT operate - is when systemic fraud and/or
force are exercised to restrain market forces. Even then, the market
eventually catches up, it just is considerably delayed. But
fraudulent/forceful outsourcing was not really the scope of this
thread as I understood it. Rather, the discussion is whether or not
outsourcing, broadly defined, was good/bad and what consequences it
Yes, my community bears witness to this, as does my own life.
But I was responding specifically to contentions about _illegal_
Mexican immigration, which is overwhelmingly a labor force at
the bottom of the food chain in most cases. Mexican doctors are
not sneaking across the Rio Grande to practice medicine, as best
Absent reason, attack with labels, eh? You intentionally ignore the
context of the comment to try and trivialize it. Minimum wage is
obviously introduced here as _an example_ of legistative intrusion
by the people I call "Do Gooders", no more.
No, an implict plan to increasingly collectivize society and its
sensibilities, thereby making the group more important than the individual.
This has a long and studied tradition form most of recorded human history,
regardless of the form of governance in use. People with power want to
maintain it, grow it, and increasingly command everyone else. I merely
cite what I did here to note that even in our free democracy, these
Brilliant riposte' ...
It is, but I suggest here that for people who obtain access to our
system illegally, the law should be rewritten. The Constitution is
written, you'll recall, with the ability to be amended.
By all means. Note that I stipulated that "fair warning" be required.
Why? Because you said so? I want to send no message. Do not presume
what you cannot possible fathom - my intentions. I want the borders
to be secure, much like I want the boundaries of my own property to
be secure. I am simply applying a similar precept.
Adams is widely credited with being the father or the modern discipline
of economics, though considerable meaningful work certainly followed him.
The Englightenment thinkers had all manner of warts. They were not
infallible. You may recall that Jefferson owned slaves, for example.
Citing them is not a blanked endorsement of every position they held.
They lived in times that did not have to consider illegal immigration
on anywhere near the scale we do. New times bring new issues and require
potentially new ideas.
Argument by misdirection. A pot smoker breaks a law as an otherwise
legal member of society. Someone entering the country with the intention
of subverting immigration control can legitimately be considered
a "foreign invader". Big difference.
What an immensely irrelevant, incorrect, and obtuse side-stepping
of the central point. Anyone old enough has likely broken some law
large or small at some point. So what? Your conclusion, it would
appear, is that this therefore means the rule of law is thus irrelevant
to those who try to sneak in.
I did? What does that mean? You finally figured out what I was arguing
all along? I embarrassed myself? My fly is open?
So what? Since when do we owe anyone who want to come here the
right to become a citizen. Insofar as immigration and naturalization
improve our country (and they do), this ought to be encouraged. To
the extent they do not, they ought to be prohibited. The boundaries
of what is good and what is not are certainly debatable, but there
is not inherent obligation on our part to even care about the issue
on behalf of those who would come here. We should care about it in
our own enlightened self-interest?
Yes, I really am an immigrant. No, I am not a liar, nor am I ever
as unpleasant personally in this medium as you appear to relish
being. This is a debate of ideas. But, absent a coherent
position of your own, you attack not my ideas, but my personal
veracity. Its an old lawyer's courtroom trick: When the facts
support your case, argue the facts. When they don't, attempt to
undermind the character and veracity of the witness. Its a cheap
One more time: I am proposing a _Change_ to our laws. I am reasonably
familiar with what is now the case and it is not working well.
(That is my _opinion_, BTW.)
"Poor Jose's Family" didn't come here in a legal manner (for the sake
of example). They didn't *have* to do so. If they want the protection
of our laws, come here legally, and participate in the system as
a member of our political contract, not as a criminal.
Really. What a brilliant insight. The US cracks down on illegal
foreign invaders and US citizens who *lawfully* visit other nations
would therefore be at greater risk thereby? I hadn't considered
that ramification. OK, you're right. We need to remove all restrictions
on foreigners entering the country so that other nations will be nicer
to us when we visit.
Right - *minmal* in each case to sustain life. No more. And you don't
get to sue the agency delivering them because you don't like the food,
want a bigger tent, or desire a face lift.
It was an attempt at irony and humor. Since this seems lost on you,
let me explain: I was noting that real assimilation is taking place.
The Mexican kids are very much the same as their other American
You could not possibly be more offensive than with that last bit.
You propose no new ideas of your own here. You write decontextualized
responses intended to trivialize what it said, but you have nothing
new to add. Worst of all, you attack personally (something I did not]
do). You, sir or madam, are an ass.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Just bring money when traveling. IME, most people don't otherwise care about
our government policies.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Disraeli as
quoted by Mark Twain
On Sat, 01 May 2004 06:13:02 GMT, Paul Kierstead
|> Our national parks and wilderness areas are being ruined by wetbacks,|> our hospital trauma centers are closing because of the costs of|> treating wetbacks injured in car crashes while fleeing from the Border
|Can we have dizum guy back and have this guy given the boot instead?
So what part troubles you? The facts maybe? Or that I don't speak of
them as "border crossers," the title of the day in the local press.
Read the following story and you'll see that "wetback" is completely
Aintcha got that backwards, Dan? Seems most "activists" don't do anything
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
That "consistent level" is maintained by laid-off factory
workers becoming burger flippers. Who was it in the Bush
administration that tried to get those fast food jobs redefined
as manufacturing jobs? 'Nuff said.
But that won't convince you to lay aside your theoretical
economics for the real world, so I've made my last responses on
the subject. At least to you.
Really? Are you sure about this? I think you'd better go back
and look at the per-capita personal income figures and how they
have grown even in just the last 50 years (never mind the last 250).
If laid-off factory workers are becoming burger flippers in such
large numbers, then why does the average income of American family
keep *rising*? Why is the percentage of Americans who are poor
keep *declining*? You are the one grinding the theoretical axe here.
The data of the past couple generations well supports my contention
that free markets make the "average" family's wealth go up - not down.
The fact that there are always some people at the bottom of the economic
ladder who really struggle does not change the Big Picture...
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Has it risen in the 5 years he was writing about? 1980 is not much help to the
guy who got laid off this week.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Napoleon Bonaparte
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.