Immigration nation

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 04:42
VIEWED: 10050
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KANEMAN

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:16 PM (P)

"Each day our nation fails to act, the problem only grows worse," the president said at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. "I will continue to work closely with members of both parties, to get past our differences, and pass a bill I can sign this year." - President Bush

Didn't millions of Americans call their senators and say they were against this bill or any bill that would give amnesty? How come the will of the people can blatantly be ignored?

Try to lay off the whole "National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast" thing.....

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 15, 2007 5:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
How come the will of the people can blatantly be ignored?

HA! This is America, you think the government is for the people or something?

SIGNYM

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:25 PM (P)

This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

I would be willing to trade THAT for amnesty, but not anything else. The current proposal is so unworkable that it is no solution at all.... it's main purpose is to muddy the illegal status of people working in the USA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

Agreed completely.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:31 PM (P)

I found this CNN typo inadvertently funny...

Quote:
In addition to beefing up border security and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, the immigration measure would create a guest worker program, which would allow migrant workers from other countries to work temporarily in the Untied States.

As someone (Fred?) said: Typo? Or Freudian slip?{/i]

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

Agreed completely.

I also agree completely ( boy, that's scary )...Unfortunately, now in the USA, thoughts like that will get you branded a racist and bigot....pretty sad.

DAVESHAYNE

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.

You do know that would require a constitutional amendment right? I say no thank you.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

SIGNYM

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:48 PM (P)

The argument has been made that our neighbors to the south are in such terrible shape because we've interfered with their economies and their governments, constantly decapitating nascent democratic socialist governments in favor of generalissimos with bronze scouring pads on their shoulders. It's a theory to which I subscribe.

But the answer to that, IMHO, is not to f*ck everyone over in this nation as well, but to stop propping up the wealthy, and practice non-inteference in other nations. I'd start by giving CAFTA and NAFTA the SHAFTA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Friday, June 15, 2007 7:10 PM (P)

"I'd start by giving CAFTA and NAFTA the SHAFTA."

That should be a bumper sticker..Well done.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 15, 2007 7:27 PM (P)

"I'd start by giving CAFTA and NAFTA the SHAFTA."

can i use that?

RUE

Friday, June 15, 2007 7:42 PM (P)

I agree with the sentiment. Just noting that NAFTA, CAFTA SHAFTA is a PN (TM) original.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 15, 2007 7:52 PM (P)

Aw shucks! And I thought it sprang from my brain! Just goes to prove, what PN writes sometimes sticks. 'Specially that image of Fred Thompson running around nekkid in the Bohemian Grove. (shudder) Thanks for the visual.... NOT.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Didn't millions of Americans call their senators and say they were against this bill or any bill that would give amnesty? How come the will of the people can blatantly be ignored?

Probably has something to do with the government being a representative democracy vs. a direct democracy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:38 PM (P)

So, I know that this subject has been beat to death many times, but I'm still willing to hear why I am wrong about wanting to control our borders and make life uncomfortable for the millions of illegals here in the USA.

The biggest problem that I see is that "illegals" work for less, often unreported, and screw the average American working stiff in the process. Even people who are here legally get screwed while their green card is held out of reach (this include programmers, engineesr, physicists etc. Its' not just manual laborers.) and in the meantime screw everyone else.

What is the solution?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RAZZA

Saturday, June 16, 2007 4:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I know that this subject has been beat to death many times, but I'm still willing to hear why I am wrong about wanting to control our borders and make life uncomfortable for the millions of illegals here in the USA.

The biggest problem that I see is that "illegals" work for less, often unreported, and screw the average American working stiff in the process. Even people who are here legally get screwed while their green card is held out of reach (this include programmers, engineesr, physicists etc. Its' not just manual laborers.) and in the meantime screw everyone else.

What is the solution?

Signym:

I think we agree for the most part on this issue. The problem is that both political parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and let's face it, the current bill would change nothing. Republicans will not betray their business interest supporters who need the cheap labor that illegals bring to the table. Democrats believe that most of these illegals will eventually vote democratic, so they want to bring in as many as possible as a result. Both
parties are hypocritical as hell on this issue, and it pisses me off. Republican politician are cowtowing to business special interest despite that fact that the majority of their constituency wants a crackdown on the use of illegal workers and thinks the only way to do that is to crackdown on the exploitive business owners who use them. Democrats who are supposed to be the party of labor, are fine with exploited labor as long as they are illegal and will eventually be democratic voters.

This is a complex issue obviously, but there are so many red herrings being thrown around by both sides that it just muddies the waters and makes it difficult to find a solution.

Big Red Herrings IMHO:
1) Anti-illegal immigration proponenets are racists
2) It's impossible to throw 12 million people in jail.
3) Everything is going to be more expensive
4} They are doing jobs americans won't do

It is not racist to espouse a policy which limits the ability of people to cross our borders illegally, how is that racist in any way?

No one is suggesting that we throw 12 million people in jail, it is a ridiculous plan that no one thinks is workable. Eliminate the employment opportunities for illegal immigrants by enforcing laws against businesses which use them and those immigrants will have no choice but to return home. They will leave of their own free will, and no one has to go to jail, except business owners who exploit people who otherwise have no other options.

So what if some goods and services are more expensive? So for the sake of cheap lettuce it's okay to exploit people with few opportunities? And let's face it, our comforts and cheap goods and services are being gained on the backs of good decent people who are simply being exploited! No way around that!

It is not a question of americans being unwilling to do the work, it is a question of americans being unwilling to the work at the cheap wages illegals are. If businesses cannot compete on a level playing field with other businesses without using cheap illegal labor, they shouldn't be in business!!

Sorry for ranting, and not sure I can offer real solutions, but we have to start with securing the border. Walls aren't going to do it either, so we shouldn't be wasting our time and resources on them. Anyone who ventures to cross the dangers of the mexican dessert is not going to be stopped by a wall. There are better methods for stopping the flow than physical barriers. Fortress America sends the wrong message about our country to the world if you ask me. We have to crack down on employers who are knowingly using illegal labor, and at the very least make it easier for legitimate business owners to verify worker status. We need to create more programs that marry business owners with the labor they seek, and do it above board so those workers can get the protections and wages they deserve. We need to work on pressuring the governments to

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 16, 2007 7:44 PM (P)

Unfortunately Marx was right, it is labour that creates wealth. Even today there are whole industries in America -- food processing and agriculture being the two biggest examples that I doubt would exist without migrant low cost labour.

That's why you get the odd sight of Republicans in Southern agricultural states pitching improved border security against terrorists and drug dealers and guest worker programs for agricultural workers.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:00 PM (P)

My impression is that you've got Marx half-right. Workers create wealth. Cheap workers create profit. Not the same thing, I think.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, June 18, 2007 7:01 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My impression is that you've got Marx half-right. Workers create wealth. Cheap workers create profit. Not the same thing, I think.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

No I think you'll find they are the same thing. If you run a business without an interest in making a profit then it isnt a business --- it's a hobby or a charity.

In part what people get paid is determined by the value of the objects they produce. For example, you could pay lawyer's $200/hr to flip burgers at McDonalds but nobody would buy the $20 big Mac's they'd make.

In some industries you are right, removing illegals from the equation would just mean that prices and pay would rise to a point where Americans would do the work. In construction you might add 20% to the cost of building a new house and people would pay that because they have no choice -- well, other than give up on ever owning their own home.

In other industries like agriculture or meat packing the same may not be true. If US beef sells for $3/lb and imported Argentine beef sells for $3.20, then adding an extra 50c to the cost of US beef could mean that there simply isn't a market for that product any more. Back in the day that wouldnt have mattered because the US could put a tariff on imported beef to keep the US producers competative, these days with NAFTA/WTO that is no longer true. If you want to compete globally for commodity goods you have to do it at the lowest possible price.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 18, 2007 3:13 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens....

This is not an "immigration law." It is a Constitutional right, under the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States
_Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We are a nation of immigrants, made great in large part by immigrants. It was a country of hardship and opportunity for those who were willing to tough it out and fend for themselves. The new blood of the best and toughest from all over the world is what brought infusions of creativity to our country.

Of course, our country isn't so tough anymore, and people don't have to fend for themselves like they used to. So the country doesn't attract the die-hard self-reliant doers that it used to. But still, for the most part, people who come here are willing to work very hard for the American dream. As an immigrant who knows many other immigrants, I understand, but disagree with, the widespread hostility that is growing in this country towards the immigrant population, both legal and illegal.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

SIGNYM

Monday, June 18, 2007 5:06 PM (P)

Fletch- As Marx (and Keynes) have noted, concentrating capital into the hands of a few eventually stagnates the entire economy by reducing aggregate demand. Keynes' whole notion of introducing money into the economy at the bottom- ie introducing inflation- was meant to mitigate exactly this problem. But as Rue said in another thread, you've got to see the BIG picture- you're still stuck in the capitalist paradigm. Capitalism is like a virus... is spreads everywhere it touches because it has hooked into the most fundamental law of human society: power concentrates unless it is actively opposed. But just because it spreads rapidly does not mean it is healthy or self-sustaining. I think that, were capitalism (which unfailingly evolves to monopolism) were to becomes the ONLY economic system worldwide, it would kill its host.

CTS: There IS an alternate approach to immigration: fight for worker's rights no matter where they come from. Increase the minimum wage above poverty level and provide everybody the same protection under labor law.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, June 18, 2007 8:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch- As Marx (and Keynes) have noted, concentrating capital into the hands of a few eventually stagnates the entire economy by reducing aggregate demand.

etc etc

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Would be nice if you would stay on topic. The pros/cons of wealth distribution has at best peripheral connections with the problem under discussion.

The fact remains that immigrants produce wealth through their labour, that wealth may not be fairly of evenly distributed but it does exist. In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How much you can pay a burger flipper is limited by his productivity and the value the market places on his product. He may work hard, he may deserve to be paid more, but if the customer won't pay $5 for a burger he will ultimately be out of luck.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Monday, June 18, 2007 8:18 PM (P)

Fuck it man, open the gates and let the nation crumble. I don't give a crap, the US hasn't been the US since the end of the Civil War. Personally, I know that I can survive in a third world hell hole, I've done it before, and I'd be even more adept if I didn't have Convention laws holding me back.

Bring on the Dark Paradise!

[IMG]
Ride down from Asgard to the battlefield,
Bringer of the valiant dead who died but never yielded,
Carry we who die in battle over land and sea,
Across the rainbow bridge to Valhalla,
Odin's waiting for me.

RUE

Monday, June 18, 2007 8:38 PM (P)

The luxury car worker buys an economy car, the economy car worker buys a motorcycle, the motorcycle worker buys a bicycle, the bicycle worker walks in shoes, and the shoemaker goes unshod. B/c of the profit 'cut' no one gets paid the full value of what they make. It's a conundrum of capitalism. That's why US citizens can't afford US-made products. The problem with cheap labor (either illegal or through exported manufacture) is that ultimately it's a race to the bottom for all workers. Hiring illegals may be a temporary boost to buying power, but ultimately it's cutting your own throat.

Quote:

Would be nice if you would stay on topic. The pros/cons of wealth distribution has at best peripheral connections with the problem under discussion.

The fact remains that immigrants produce wealth through their labour, that wealth may not be fairly of evenly distributed but it does exist. In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How much you can pay a burger flipper is limited by his productivity and the value the market places on his product. He may work hard, he may deserve to be paid more, but if the customer won't pay $5 for a burger he will ultimately be out of luck.

*************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, June 18, 2007 9:54 PM (P)

Except the world isn't really like that. In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.

The point is that the immigrant does bring money to the table via his labour. Yes it's an unfair distribution because neither he nor Uncle Sam get their fair share but they do contribute and that contribution is worth something.

If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 18, 2007 9:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Would be nice if you would stay on topic. The pros/cons of wealth distribution has at best peripheral connections with the problem under discussion.

The fact remains that immigrants produce wealth through their labour, that wealth may not be fairly of evenly distributed but it does exist. In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How much you can pay a burger flipper is limited by his productivity and the value the market places on his product. He may work hard, he may deserve to be paid more, but if the customer won't pay $5 for a burger he will ultimately be out of luck.

First of all. the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion. And the only reason why our current GOP administration is for illegal immigration is that their corporate buddies get the cheap labor that allows them to make a big profit. BTW-your position has a some doozy holes in it!

Quote:
In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.

How about those $100 sneakers that take $5 to produce? There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

Quote:
In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.

Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:
If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.

In every instance where the minimum wage has been increased- both historically and geographically- the economy has actually improved. Go figure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Monday, June 18, 2007 10:12 PM (P)

Congress has dragged it's feet on raising the minimum wage, and no one understands why the gap between the richest and poorest is widening. Ok, some folks understand ;-)

I'm all for forcing businesses to pay/collect taxes on their 'illegals', and paying them at least minimum wage.

Catch someone not collecting/paying taxes for illegals, throw the employer in jail. Catch them paying less then minimum wage, throw the employer in jail. I think you'd see things straighten out pretty quick.

FLETCH2

Monday, June 18, 2007 11:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
] First of all. the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion. And the only reason why our current GOP administration is for illegal immigration is that their corporate buddies get the cheap labor that allows them to make a big profit. BTW-your position has a some doozy holes in it!

During the civil war the Irish in New York rioted because people convinced them that freed slaves would undercut them and cost them their jobs. Just because someone feels passionate about something doesn't mean that they are right. Show me a "doozy hole" in the basic premise that you can't pay someone more than the value of their work product, show me a "doozy hole" in the idea that an immigrant's work doesnt have some value.

Quote:

In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.
How about those $100 sneakers that take $5 to produce? There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

The operative word here is DOWN. Of course you can pay someone less than the value of their labour, in fact if you intend to make a profit you have to, the point I was making is that you can't afford to pay them more than that value. If adding 50c to the cost of a pound of US meat means you can't sell it because imported beef is cheaper then you can't afford to pay someone too much more to process that beef. So in some industries it isn't the case that an immigrant job at $3/hr would become a US worker's job at $8/hr if the immigrant wasn't there. That job would simply disappear.

I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours at least I realise that it is possible to price yourself out of a job.

Quote:

Quote:
In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.
Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

I find openning my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.

The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance. If they ignore those niceties (like many here in Texas do) then they can get a car. Personally if public transport can get me where I want to go I use it. When was the last time you did?

Quote:

If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.
In every instance where the minimum wage has been increased- both historically and geographically- the economy has actually improved. Go figure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

That makes sense trickle up is always more effective than trickle down because lower income people will tend to spend any extra money they make and that in turn stimulates demand. There will also however be folks that get let go because their employer can't or won't shoulder the increase.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
] First of all. the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion. And the only reason why our current GOP administration is for illegal immigration is that their corporate buddies get the cheap labor that allows them to make a big profit. BTW-your position has a some doozy holes in it!

During the civil war the Irish in New York rioted because people convinced them that freed slaves would undercut them and cost them their jobs. Just because someone feels passionate about something doesn't mean that they are right. Show me a "doozy hole" in the basic premise that you can't pay someone more than the value of their work product, show me a "doozy hole" in the idea that an immigrant's work doesnt have some value.

Quote:

In addition the value of all jobs default down to the value of the product they make.
How about those $100 sneakers that take $5 to produce? There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

The operative word here is DOWN. Of course you can pay someone less than the value of their labour, in fact if you intend to make a profit you have to, the point I was making is that you can't afford to pay them more than that value. If adding 50c to the cost of a pound of US meat means you can't sell it because imported beef is cheaper then you can't afford to pay someone too much more to process that beef. So in some industries it isn't the case that an immigrant job at $3/hr would become a US worker's job at $8/hr if the immigrant wasn't there. That job would simply disappear.

I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours at least I realise that it is possible to price yourself out of a job.

Quote:

Quote:
In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles --- go and look if you dont believe me.
Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

I find openning my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.

The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance. If they ignore those niceties (like many here in Texas do) then they can get a car. Personally if public transport can get me where I want to go I use it. When was the last time you did?

Quote:

If that contribution went away there would be economic consequences both to the national GDP and to the cost of goods.
In every instance where the minimum wage has been increased- both historically and geographically- the economy has actually improved. Go figure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

That makes sense trickle up is always more effective than trickle down because lower income people will tend to spend any extra money they make and that in turn stimulates demand. There will also however be folks that get let go because their employer can't or won't shoulder the increase.

Bravo fletch2. I doubt you'll get any responses. Case closed. I loved the slap backs.......Well, he did win this argument....and managed to be snarky tooooooooo.........

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:37 PM (P)

Poor Fletch, you have Kaneman on your side. HAHAHAHA! Well, I won't count it against you!

Fletch, I'm not going to do a point-by-point bc I want to address your post more holistically. You have a very basic contradiction within your own reasoning. On the one hand, you say that we need immigrant labor because otherwise cheap foreign labor will out-compete us. On the other hand, you say that no Americans will lose any jobs because of cheap immigrant labor. You can't have it both ways. Either cheap labor is a threat or it is not.

In addition, the point about "pricing yourself out of a job" assumes that "the market" is functioning. However, "the market" does not function when one side (in this case corporations) have inordinately more power than the other side (workers). A truly functioning labor market would require a force equal in scope and power to the multinationals, which doesn't exist. That would allow the price of labor to go UP as well as DOWN, whereas you posit a one-way street.

Also, I think we have a fundamental difference in how we define "value", and how much "value" an item acquires in the marketplace. You're prolly thinking of a price/demand curve.

So just out of curiosity, how much economics did you study?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:12 PM (P)

"The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance."

That must be why they live 15 to an apartment and shop yard sales for clothes. They COULD live better on those wages, they just have a hard time legally spending legal tender.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:28 PM (P)

Well, yes, living near LA as I do, I've driven thru Pico-Union and seen the ladies pushing a stroller, with three other kids and three bags of groceries taking the bus. I'm sure it's just a matter of choice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:56 PM (P)

I don't want to interfere with SignyM's conversation here, but do the women who make Adidas sneakers for $5 each actually go the store and buy them at $120 a pop?

That IS what profit is about - the people who make the stuff not actually getting enough money to buy it. And of course, the higher the profit, the bigger the gap.

But that's not the only issue with capitalism, either economic or social.

It seeks to maximize profit. So if you can sell something for $10 that only cost $0.01 to make you will likely be doing that rather than selling some other product. Manufacturing lipstick becomes more attractive than manufacturing steel, or autos, or chips. Selling premium goods to a few people like luxury automobiles becomes more attractive than selling staples to many like food. Selling Viagra and Lipitor to first-world people is more attractive than selling anti-malarials to third-world people. In short, capitalism doesn't market to fill a need, it markets to maximize profit.

Another economic issue with it is the problem of 'the commons'. If something can't be isolated and individually owned capitalism doesn't account for it. So, potentially beneficial things (public health) are left undone, while detrimental things (air pollution) go unchecked in a capitalist model.

As SignyM also mentioned, for the system to be freely competative the workers must have the same power as the owners of the means of production - the capitalists. But since we see that robust mutinationals exist but not robust international unions there is no freely functioning market.

Short on time so leaving some economic issues and moving onto social ones ...

Capitalism structures the entire society in a zero-sum competitive model. Neurologically that's a highly abnormal human state. MOST people are biologically geared to cooperate, and they find peaceful, friendly social interactions preferable.

Anyway, I have to go. Perhaps I'll get back here later.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:56 AM (P)

Illegal aliens murder dozens of US citizens every day in USA. I agree 100% with Alex Jones today. Send all soldiers to the borders and massacre all illegal aliens with helicopter gunships. THAT'S what the military is for, not slaughtering 2.5-million innocent folks in Iraq who never invaded USA. Then arrest all employers, landlords and banksters of illegal aliens, and seize their assets.

Mexico invaded USA in both World War 1 and World War 2 to support the Germans, in the Plan of San Diego. THIS IS WAR!!!
www.vdare.com/Sailer/060129_sandiego.htm
www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/deisyseis_partone.htm

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:51 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, yes, living near LA as I do, I've driven thru Pico-Union and seen the ladies pushing a stroller, with three other kids and three bags of groceries taking the bus. I'm sure it's just a matter of choice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

You just described my mother back in the 70's and guess what? we had a car and my dad drove it to work every day. Just because modern suburban soccer moms have a minivan or a truck to run the kids around doesnt mean that everyone can afford 2 vehicles. So your "observation" proves nothing, unless you stopped and asked her which of course you didn't because that would mean you'd have to treat her as a person and not a political footbal.

Here in Texas, where public transport is pitifull yes, even the immigrants have cars. I know this because a coworker was involved in a fender bender with one and the driver had no licence or insurance so my friend had to pay for his own repairs.

The problem both you and Rue have is that you never let reality get in the way of your preconceptions.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:55 AM (P)

"The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance."

That must be why they live 15 to an apartment and shop yard sales for clothes. They COULD live better on those wages, they just have a hard time legally spending legal tender.

Oh, and was that snark really necessary ? Or are you having a hard time addressing the topic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:24 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't want to interfere with SignyM's conversation here, but do the women who make Adidas sneakers for $5 each actually go the store and buy them at $120 a pop?

You ask the wrong question. What makes an Adidas sneaker worth $120? I wouldn't pay that for a shoe. Is there something about it that makes it 12 times better than a $10 shoe? Really? I'm curious to know.

In reality the shoe is worth $120 not because that's it's intrinsic value but because that's what someone in the West is willing to pay for it. It's supply and demand, if people didnt have the money to pay $120 for sneakers then they would not cost $120. They sell them for what the market can bear not for the actual value of the item which probably cost less than $20 to make.

Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality to the ones they make but buy them at a far lower price. In the US you can go to a Fillines basement or Ross and buy a $60 designer second or department store overstock at half price. In a similar store in Hong Kong you can get that same item for $1 because nobody there would pay even $30 for it.

Quote:

That IS what profit is about - the people who make the stuff not actually getting enough money to buy it. And of course, the higher the profit, the bigger the gap.

No that's not what profit is about. Profit is only that amount extra that you make on the sale of an item over and above it's design, manufacture, distribution and retail costs. How big that profit is is determined by those costs and by the amount the customer is willing to pay to acquire it.

Let's stick with your shoe example.

You live in a wealthy country one where there are enough people willing to pay $120 for sneakers to keep the value of those sneakers at $120. If nobody bought the sneakers at that price I'm sure they would be cheaper because that's the nature of the market. There may even be times when for a brief period items are sold for less than they cost to make. That's a market decision too.

There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.

Quote:

It seeks to maximize profit. So if you can sell something for $10 that only cost $0.01 to make you will likely be doing that rather than selling some other product. Manufacturing lipstick becomes more attractive than manufacturing steel, or autos, or chips. Selling premium goods to a few people like luxury automobiles becomes more attractive than selling staples to many like food.

No that's obviously wrong. If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel, there would be more Herme's stores than Walgreens and that isn't true. You are right people do try to maximise profit especially if you're investing capital BUT If everyone made and sold the same thing then there would be a glut of it and prices would fall. As prices and profits fell people would move their money out of that segment of the economy into one that promised higher returns and thus you would see diversification.

Companies like Walgeens and Kroger do not exist to sell you deoderant and food. They exist to make a profit, they just chose to do it by selling deoderant and food. If they could not make a profit at what they do they would not be doing it, they are a business not a public service.

And yes if there is a better profit elsewhere in the economy liquid capital will try and chase it. The problem is that moving money around is not a lossless process. There are costs involved both real (like brokerage costs) and theoretical (like opertunity costs.) That means that in most instances the amount of extra profit you could make by taking your money out of Walgreens stock and using it to open a Hermes boutique

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The biggest obstical to illegals getting cars is... wait for it... they are illegal and as such have problems getting things like licences and insurance."

That must be why they live 15 to an apartment and shop yard sales for clothes. They COULD live better on those wages, they just have a hard time legally spending legal tender.

Oh, and was that snark really necessary ? Or are you having a hard time addressing the topic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Did you just quote your own post and complain that it's snarky?

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:35 AM (P)

I quoted my post b/c you failed to address it. You'd rather pretend that since you have one friend who got into a car accident once in the past with someone who may or may not have been illegal you've answered the entire question of wages and illegal immigrants. And I'm curious if you have anything of interest to add to the discussion, or if you intend to rest on your little a ---necdote.

The snark comment was about YOUR post, which was, as you know, snarky.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I quoted my post b/c you failed to address it. You'd rather pretend that since you have one friend who got into a car accident once in the past with someone who may or may not have been illegal you've answered the entire question of wages and illegal immigrants.

The snark comment was about YOUR post, which was, as you know, snarky.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Then I beg your forgiveness oh knowing one for I being just a poor mortal did not intend for said post to be snarky. Lowe I will whip myself with birches for having angered you so....

--- Now that was snarky.

I believe I have answered the question well enough. Both my friend and the Dallas police --- know nothings that they are --- know that the guy involved in the accident was an illegal because well he was, they caught him at the scene. I know that causes a problem with your theory but hey.

http://cgi.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/03/29/news/doc460b34108ea1f059
906919.txt

"Supporters estimate some 250,000 immigrants, illegal or not, already are driving in Illinois without proper training and insurance. If they get into traffic accidents, many of those people will flee and leave the other driver stuck with any repair costs or hospital bills."

As to your 15 families to a room or whatever. I have no doubt that somewhere there probably are people that do that. There are people somewhere that abuse their children, did you abuse your child this morning? There are people somewhere that torture animals, do you like it when fluffy squeels like that?

Just because some people do things does not mean that everyone does. I know it suits your political viewpoint to imagine all illegals living in quaint Dickensian squalar and no doubt some do. Not all of them do though, perhaps not even the majority, and yes that means some of them have cars -- how cheeky of them to be so extravagant, they should be huddling around a candle as their only source of warmth until their employer sacks them on Christmas Eve......

He's the thing. We live in a world where there is real slavery. Where a girl can be snatched off a farm in Romania and end up in a brothel in Nice. Someone who didn't decide to leave her home did not chose the work she does, gains nothing from it and will be killed or injured if she refuses. By contrast most US illegals came here of their own free will, made the journey under their own power, found their own employment and can leave it at any time. And we find that SigNY resents them for taking American jobs and you do it because they are being used by the man. Unless you are 100% native American your ancestors made the same choices these guys did. They probably had the same hardship getting here and may even have lived 15 to a room while they got a start. And yes that means they were probably exploited by those capitalists along the way. You know what? The illegals today and your ancestors back then shared one thing, they both thought themselves better off in America doing shitty jobs than being back where they came from.

And I've just wasted an hour of my time for nothing because you are too stupid and too stuborn to ever conceed that you may ever be even slightly wrong about anything.

So guess what, you won, I'll conceed the sky is bright diamond pink if you say it is because you will just argue it to death if anyone says otherwise.

Good night.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:25 AM (P)

I'm sorry about the snark comment. When I came on for some reason your longer post didn't come up but your shorter one did. Perhaps we were cross-posting? Anyway, I was referring to this "The problem both you and Rue have is that you never let reality get in the way of your preconceptions."

"It's supply and demand" Supply and demand has little to do with it. And in fact your own argument doesn't follow thorugh on that idea and runs off to this - "Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality (interesting elide) to the ones they make". Taking the shoe example, an unspecified leather Adidas sneaker costs about $72.00 in the Philippines (USED. non marking sole. Made in China. Leather sneakers. there's a very litle tear at the back (ankle area). very very little. bought this for P3,800.00 size) At Amazon mens' Adidas leather sneakers cost 69.90 - 84.95. http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Mali-Leather- Sneaker/dp/B000CFGZSE I'd say that's not much of a price break off-shore. And this REAL example proves my point, as do you oddly enough. There is no price break for the sneakers those women assemble. They can't afford the thing they make. So, the person who makes the luxury sneaker buys the cheap brand. The person who makes the cheap brand ...

"If nobody bought the sneakers at that price" is a complete mis-statement of the calculus involved. If you can make as much a profit selling 10@ $120 sneakers as 100@ $12 sneakers you will market the $120 sneakers. And why is that? B/c the people buying the $120 sneakers have more money and are steadier customers.

"If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel"
Yes, and look at the state of steel, car and chip making in the US v lipstick. I rest my case.

"If you can make 20c profit on an antimalerial drug that 20 million people will need to take daily, that's far more money than selling 100,000 doses a month of a $40 impotence pill" In that cast then there WOULD be active research in making better anti-malarials, anti-trypansomites, and so on. Yet drug-makers are constantly looking for the next 'lifestyle' blockbuster drug - ie a lifetime treatment for first-world discomforts. Since that is an indisputable fact you have yet to explain how that happens under your theories.

"if you step back from the insurance/MHO setup you have here and squint at it, and take into account that its something most people need" Any more caveats? In fact, the medical example really shows the consumer-cost of profit as well as marketing and pricing. Socialized medicine costs 1/2 or less per capita compared to the US and covers 50% more people. Why is that? B/c the government is NOT concerned with profit and so medicine is run - at cost. In the US OTOH it is FAR more profitable to cover a select portion of the country ('cherry-picking'). So not only do people who do get insurance pay more b/c of the profit cut, the rest are excluded from getting insurance at all.

"people that run businesses happen to like having the freedom to determine what happens to their property" If you 'owned' a river do you think you should be allowed to pollute it if it's a source of drinking water?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:33 PM (P)

Fletch, apparently you did not see my previous post. so here it is....
---------------
I'm not going to do a point-by-point bc I want to address your post more holistically. You have a very basic contradiction within your own reasoning. On the one hand, you say that we need immigrant labor because otherwise cheap foreign labor will out-compete us. On the other hand, you say that no Americans will lose any jobs because of cheap immigrant labor. You can't have it both ways. Either cheap labor is a threat or it is not.

In addition, the point about "pricing yourself out of a job" assumes that "the market" is functioning. However, "the market" does not function when one side (in this case corporations) have inordinately more power than the other side (workers). A truly functioning labor market would require a force equal in scope and power to the multinationals, which doesn't exist. That would allow the price of labor to go UP as well as DOWN, whereas you posit a one-way street.

Also, I think we have a fundamental difference in how we define "value", and how much "value" an item acquires in the marketplace. You're prolly thinking of a price/demand curve. (which you proved with one of your later posts.)
------------------

I'm going to add that you stuffed one OTHER internally contradictory argument within your previous post, which was pointed out by RUE specifically. On the one hand, you say that the female makers of premium sneakers wear sneakers of "similar" quality because they get a huge price break at their end. On the other hand, you directly contradict yourself when you say that those referenced sneaker companies sell their sneakers overseas (to USA customers) because the USA is a steadier market.

Now, either the laborers can afford said luxury sneakers... in which case the companies would be selling internally to their own workforce. Or they cannot, in which case the companies would be selling overseas. As before, you can't have it both ways. Either the laborers can afford their own products, or they cannot. By your own words, they cannot.

So far, the only thing you have proved is that cheap labor drives down wages, and cheap laborers are poorer.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"It's supply and demand" Supply and demand has little to do with it. And in fact your own argument doesn't follow thorugh on that idea and runs off to this - "Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality (interesting elide) to the ones they make". Taking the shoe example, an unspecified leather Adidas sneaker costs about $72.00 in the Philippines (USED. non marking sole. Made in China. Leather sneakers. there's a very litle tear at the back (ankle area). very very little. bought this for P3,800.00 size) At Amazon mens' Adidas leather sneakers cost 69.90 - 84.95. http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Mali-Leather- Sneaker/dp/B000CFGZSE I'd say that's not much of a price break off-shore.

Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production. The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.

Quote:

And this REAL example proves my point, as do you oddly enough. There is no price break for the sneakers those women assemble. They can't afford the thing they make. So, the person who makes the luxury sneaker buys the cheap brand. The person who makes the cheap brand ...

The mistake you are making is that you keep buying into the idea that there are intrinsically more expensive trainers. In fact the actual difference between the $120 and the "cheap" pair is actually minimal and in fact they are probably made by the same people in teh same factory. What makes a $120 trainer is the name on the label and the marketing hype that convinces people that this mass produced shoe is special enough to be worth the extra $100. Put another way, at point of production they are both cheap trainers the fact that one can be sold half a world away for high prices has more to do with the nature of the market they are sold in the intrinsice value of the shoe.

Quote:

"If nobody bought the sneakers at that price" is a complete mis-statement of the calculus involved. If you can make as much a profit selling 10@ $120 sneakers as 100@ $12 sneakers you will market the $120 sneakers. And why is that? B/c the people buying the $120 sneakers have more money and are steadier customers.

You dont address the point. The $120 trainer exists because there are enough people willing to pay $120 for a trainer. If people didn't have the money to buy them then they wouldn't b e able to sell them at that price. In fact you can see this principle in action in a Ross or a Fillines.

I have a friend who's husband is enlisted in the navy, they do not make a lot of money. When she visits us she shops at Ross Dress for Less because they didnt have them where she lives. She buys Tommy Hilfiger Jeans and tops for hubby when she's here because she can't afford the department store prices but he likes the brand. Now think on this. Those shirts in a Dillards would cost you $70 each and they obviously sell enough of them at that price to keep selling them but there are not enough people willing to pay $70 a shirt to sell them all. By the time my friend gets them they are $20 a shirt and you can bet they cost far less than that to produce.

So is the shirt a $70 shirt, a $20 shirt of the $3 it probably cost to produce. It is the same shirt it's intrinsic value remains the same. However it's cost is determined by how much the buyer is willing to pay to acquire it.

Quote:

"If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel"
Yes, and look at the state of steel, car and chip making in the US v lipstick. I rest my case.

And it's a loosing one. Reality isn't some guy bursting into the boardroom of US Steel throwing a lipstick on the boardroom table and saying "Gentlemen this is the future!!!" What actually happened was tha

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:48 PM (P)

Uh, Fletch2? Is my post not worthy of reply? Oh, BTW, when you said

Quote:
There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.

But they DO sit in boardrooms and figure out how to deprive people of wages.

Quote:
Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production.

Where nearly everything is counterfeit.

Quote:
The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.

Damn! That's expensive shipping! They must give each sneaker a seat on a commuter flight from Hong Kong to Manila! That's a good example of maximal profit right there.

Its' weird. You contradict yourself at every turn. You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor. You say that maximal profit isn't the driving force, and then you come up with a prime example. You say that laborers can afford their own products, and then you turn around and immediately point out that they can't.

Quote:
...just illistrating that if the public would pay for services companies would exists to provide that service for profit.

And here we once again come to the nub of capitalism. If you drive down wages to make maximal profit... something you have already agrees happens... then you have starved your own market, and must find richer people to sell to someplace else.

Imagine this: Take the entire world's output at its sale price and call it aggregate supply. Now take the entire world's wages and call it aggregate demand. Since you've already agreed that "profit" is the difference between the two, it becomes clear (or SHOULD become clear) that demand is always less than supply by exactly the amount of profit. And capitalism, which requires the ability and willingness to pay for services and goods, has just starved it's own market. And that imbalance is the genesis of depressions. Even Henry Ford, that great capitalist, recognized this during the Great Depression because he tried to keep his factory running as long as possible even in a down market, understanding that no one will buy if they aren't working.

--------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Uh, Fletch2? Is my post not worthy of reply?

If you keep posting rubbish like this then no.

Quote:

Oh, BTW, when you said
Quote:
There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.
But they DO sit in boardrooms and figure out how to deprive people of wages.

That's a loaded statement. "Deprive" implies something someone has a right to. If someone took your labour and then refused to pay you that would be depriving you of wages, and incidentally would probably be illegal. Just because someone choses not to pay you as much as you think you should be paid is not deprivation. I always wanted to be a rock star, damn that I was deprived of that chance despite having no musical talent.

Quote:

Quote:
Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production.
Where nearly everything is counterfeit.

No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent. Like I said, at point of production they are all cheap trainers.

For that mater do you know for sure that the ones in the Philipines are genuine?

Quote:

Quote:
The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.
Damn! That's expensive shipping! They must give each sneaker a seat on a commuter flight from Hong Kong to Manila! That's a good example of maximal profit right there.

Then you wonder why nobody wants to talk to you.

They were imported to make a profit obviously in Manilla there are enough people willing to pay top dollar that they can be sold at higher prices. I say again at point of production they are all cheap trainers. What it costs to make them is a different question from how much you can sell them for.

Let me give you an example. You sell me your old car for $500, I turn around and sell it on for $2000. In your worldview you seem to believe that you have some right to the $1500 I made on the transaction even though you were happy to sell to me for $500.

Mei Mei is paid $1 a pair to make trainers in Mr Badger's factory. Some of those trainers are Badger home brand and sell for $10 some Adidas and sell for $120. Exactly the same work is involved in making both. You look at the end price and then decide that the person making the goods are unfairly compensated. I look at the end price and think the person paying $120 is being ripped off.

Quote:

Its' weird. You contradict yourself at every turn. You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor.

blah blah etc

Reread what I wrote. Do it carefully. I dont have time to go through every straw man "contradiction" you claim there is. I will tackle this point later in more detail for the hard of thinking.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:14 PM (P)

Strange, the more you are pressed on the specifics of your notions the less you have to say besides bitch, snark, snark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:14 PM (P)

I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I have to earn a living. I can send you my account details and you can compensate me for loss of income. Otherwise wait until after my workday like a good little boy.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Strange, the more you are pressed on the specifics of your notions the less you have to say besides bitch, snark, snark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

That's exasperation, I have low tolerance for deliberately stupid people. I can't wait until school starts again and you have less free time to be deliberately dense.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:17 PM (P)

WOW. I looked back on my posts and i KNOW I didn't deserve anything like this!

Ok, when you have free time we can discuss- I hope. But try not to substitute snark for discussion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WOW. I looked back on my posts and i KNOW I didn't deserve anything like this!

And that is part of the problem. When Fletch's economic arguments didn't jibe with yours you questioned his expertise and used the word 'gobbledy-gook'. Not once has Fletch questioned your expertise or relegated your position as 'gobbledy-gook'.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:45 PM (P)

And somehow you missed ALL the undeserved snipes Fletch2 was making all along - like these:

Would be nice if you would stay on topic.
I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours
I find opening my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.
So your "observation" proves nothing, unless you stopped and asked her which of course you didn't because that would mean you'd have to treat her as a person and not a political football.

Now how did that happen?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You have a very basic contradiction within your own reasoning. On the one hand, you say that we need immigrant labor because otherwise cheap foreign labor will out-compete us. On the other hand, you say that no Americans will lose any jobs because of cheap immigrant labor. You can't have it both ways. Either cheap labor is a threat or it is not.

Ok, this is the only one I’m going to answer. The others are either strawman arguments or you really are unable to understand a simple point. This is done in my afternoon break ---so it won’t be pretty.

Basic definition, --there is a difference between wealth and profit. Wealth is in effect the gross difference between the value of raw materials and the value of finished goods. Profit is the difference between manufacturing costs and sale price.

That means that where a product is made has consequences.

Imagine I make widgets in the US. A widget is a small, manufactured item of high value and relatively small mass. Each widget retails for $10 of which $2 are plant and materials, $4 labour and $4 profit. The job is labour intensive so I employ 5000 Americans to make widgets for me in a plant in Bugspit, Idaho.

For each widget made my workers create $8 worth of wealth transforming raw materials into manufactured products. In doing so we generate $8 of industrial activity $4 I keep as profit and $4 of which goes to the workforce. Some portion of that money goes directly into the local economy, my workers buy goods, see movies, eat out etc and some of the money made from widgets ends up as taxes that pay for schools and roads and other good things in Bugspit.

So far so good but I’m a greedy B*d and it comes to my attention that if I could make widgets in Wi-Me China the labour costs are half. So in Wi-Me my fixed costs are still $2, but my workers cost only $2 a widget, which means that I make a whole $6 in profit all of which I repatriate to the US of A.

My profits just went up 50%, the stockmarket loves the news because to the investor better return for investment is always good news. Here’s the problem though. When I made goods in Idaho the wealth created was $8 all of which stayed in the US and funded other businesses and local taxes in Idaho. Now making widgets still produces $8 of new wealth but $2 of that stays in China and very little of the $6 coming back goes to Bugspit Idaho. Instead of Idaho having tax revenues from widget makers they actually have unemployed folks both from layoffs from the widget factory and from the numerous local businesses widget makers used to frequent.

Meanwhile in Wi-Me folks actually start to have buying power to purchase goods and this in turn results in secondary business that sell to widget makers. Now an internationalist will tell you that eventually Wi_Me’s widget makers will buy US made goods and send some of the $2/widget back to the US. However while that is true it doesn’t happen in even a medium timeframe.

So in short, when an illegal works in the US the value of his labour and the wealth he produces becomes part of the US economy and generates secondary economic activity. These people need to buy food, buy clothes ride the bus or buy fuel depending on your viewpoint. All of which puts a portion of that wealth back into the US economy. A worker in China creates wealth in China that is part of the Chinese economy and generates secondary economic effects there.

So you see there is no contradiction. If the choice is between creating wealth in the US and creating it abroad and just repatriating profit, there is a bigger economic lever effect in creating wealth here.

In your world the choice is between hiring an illegal at $3/hr and paying an American $8/hr. That's actually a false choice. In truth the industry could not pay $8/hr and remain competative with imports at $3/hr. If the immigrants went the work would go abroad. In work that produces movable product the $8/hr American worker loses nothing to the $3/hr illegal because he would never be

OLDENGLANDDRY

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Illegal aliens murder dozens of US citizens every day in USA. I agree 100% with Alex Jones today. Send all soldiers to the borders and massacre all illegal aliens with helicopter gunships. THAT'S what the military is for, not slaughtering 2.5-million innocent folks in Iraq who never invaded USA. Then arrest all employers, landlords and banksters of illegal aliens, and seize their assets.

Mexico invaded USA in both World War 1 and World War 2 to support the Germans, in the Plan of San Diego. THIS IS WAR!!!
www.vdare.com/Sailer/060129_sandiego.htm
www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/deisyseis_partone.htm

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

Heh, Heh, Heh.
Soon our Mexican allies will be in control of your helpless land. Already they are peeing in your swimming pools and infesting your burgers with their bodily fluids.
You are doomed Gringo.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:37 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And somehow you missed ALL the undeserved snipes Fletch2 was making all along - like these:

Would be nice if you would stay on topic.
I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours
I find opening my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.
So your "observation" proves nothing, unless you stopped and asked her which of course you didn't because that would mean you'd have to treat her as a person and not a political football.

Now how did that happen?

Remember how important context is Rue. 'Would be nice if you stay on topic' came first. It was Fletch's opinion that Signy was veering off topic, it's been known to happen. The rest of your pulled quotes came after Signy's snipes which proves Fletch has human emotions. BTW, it wasn't Fletch lamenting 'what did I do to deserve this', it was Signy. Loyalty, while admirable, does not make right.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And somehow you missed ALL the undeserved snipes Fletch2 was making all along - like these:

Would be nice if you would stay on topic.

Well it would be nice, he changes focus when his ideas are refuted.

Quote:

I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours

Which is in answer to---

Quote:

There are so many excpetions to this statement - both specific and theoretical- that I think you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with.

Quote:

I find opening my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot.

In answer to --

Quote:

Except illegal aliens, who ride the bus. You're sort of arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:

So your "observation" proves nothing, unless you stopped and asked her which of course you didn't because that would mean you'd have to treat her as a person and not a political football.

Which I charge is fair comment. He saw this woman loaded down and waiting for a bus and came to the conclusions

1) She's illegal
2) She's riding the bus because she is poor
3) the family is too poor to own a vehicle
4) all illegals are too poor to own a vehicle

However he never once actually stopped and confirmed any of that. He didnt need to because it fitted with his pre-existing prejustices.

He then uses his interpretation of what he saw to refute my position based on fact.

Sorry Rue if you will be blind to the remarks of your friends dont expect anyone to see you as an unbiased observer.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:54 PM (P)

This should cover you both.

FLETCH2
Monday, June 18, 2007 - 10:09
Would be nice if you would stay on topic. (attack)

SIGNYM
Monday, June 18, 2007 - 11:59
the distribution of wealth and the effect that illegal- and therefore cheap- -labor has on American wages is a BIG part of anti (illegal) immigrant passion (answer)
you should go back and REALLY study economics, and not the gobbledy-gook that someone filled your head with (return)

FLETCH2
Monday, June 18, 2007 - 13:42
I think my understanding of economics is actually ahead of yours at least I realise that it is possible to price yourself out of a job (new attack)
I find openning my mouth to speak is better than mumbling through clenched teeth, which I suspect you do a lot. (and another one !)

SIGNYM
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 09:37
So just out of curiosity, how much economics did you study? (neutral approach)

FLETCH2
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 20:51
The problem both you and Rue have is that you never let reality get in the way of your preconceptions. (yet another undeserved personal attack)

And so on ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:02 PM (P)

Context Rue. What about all the other posts between the two? You can't just go through the posts and pick out the stuff you want and pronunce "HA! I'm right and you're all wrong".

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:11 PM (P)

Oops! sorry Fletch2. In my head I thought you had already won this argument...I forgot how relentless ruse can be.........and irrational.......Well, it's true.........

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Context Rue. What about all the other posts between the two? You can't just go through the posts and pick out the stuff you want and pronunce "HA! I'm right and you're all wrong".

Why not? Nothing has stopped her before.........Well, it's true.........

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:14 AM (P)

You're right Fletch, it's not pretty. And instead of just saying "I won't answer you because you're too stupid" humor me. Show me HOW I'm stupid. Be detailed. Explain it to me like I'm the idiot that you think I am, step by step. I don't bite. I have a different definition of "wealth" which you have not asked about.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:16 AM (P)

BDN- I didn't attack Fletch2, at least not the the extent that he attacked me. If you feel otherwise, show me where and how. BTW- Fletch2 has contradiicted himself sevral times in this thread. I pointed out specifically where and how and that was what I meant by "talking out of both sides of his mouth". I have not heard any refutation. Fletch2 refuses to address those points.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:42 AM (P)

Actually you ceased to interest me a while ago when I realised that the general pattern of your interactions on these boards is a passive-agressive cry for attention.

From this thread we have the "look at me" behavior.

Quote:

Fletch, apparently you did not see my previous post. so here it is....

Quote:

I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

ie

"I will not be IGNORED."

and my favourite, the martyr

Quote:

WOW. I looked back on my posts and i KNOW I didn't deserve anything like this!

From the evolution thread

Quote:

Helloooo? Anti, are you home?

and from the everything is just Dandy thread.

Quote:

I assume Geezer is too busy to reply to my post.

So we have a modus operendi. You basically take a position in the thread, you deliberately act dumb and expect everyone to pay you attention by refuting your posts. If they are dumb enough to try to do that they get more of your rubbish. Wash and repeat when nescessary. If they try and ignore you and cut you out of the discussion you pout and whine about it. You play the victim if anyone calls you on it and I suspect you decide you won when the thread eventually closes down.

Game over sport. You have everything I'm going to say to you in this topic in the posts I've made. I have no further interest in your opinions, definitions or political viewpoint. I have answered you repeatedly with examples in areas where I conceed there could be confusion. Your pattern of behavior suggests you want the attention far more than you want a discussion. I don't have time for you.

RUE

Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:11 AM (P)

"Game over sport."

YES ! It's an evil twisted plot to - CONVERSE ! And - EXCHANGE IDEAS ! Is there no end to the perversity ? Is there no shame ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:34 AM (P)

Fletch2, I like to ask questions which I hope will either clarify someone else's opinion, or lead them to realize that there is a logical flaw in their approach. Usually the other person ducks out when I ask a question they they refuse to answer, such as

Quote:
If all of the species' archetypes were present to begin with and there was a massive flood, what you would expect to find is a large layer, rather uniform, with fossils of all types jumbled together. And yet clearly, there are a lot of "archetypes" missing from the earlier sediment layers followed by other layers which contain other kinds of fossils. You would have to somehow account for the fact that many archetypes are separated from each other by sediment layers that would have taken hundreds of thousands to millions of years to lay down.

The reason why Anti came to a skidding halt on this one is because s/he cannot answer that question without running into the internal contradiction with

Quote:
I don't doubt the basic sciences

... just as you cannot counter my opinion that you'e contradicted yourself several times in this thread without confronting those very contradictions. Strangely, all I ask people to do is explain themselves in detail. And strangely, that's where they duck out. It's a shame, because wrinkles get ironed out when people discuss stuff in detail. That's where God is,... or the devil.

And the funny thing, no one has thought to ask me to explain myself in detail. For example, you have never asked me how I define "value" despite the fact that it is essential to the discussion. Why is that? Are you afraid you might get a detailed explanation?

Perhaps you have never heard of the Socratic Method:

Quote:
In this method, a series of questions are posed to help a person or group to determine their underlying beliefs and the extent of their knowledge. The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine one's own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. In fact, Socrates once said, "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."

Leave it to the "intellects" of FFF not to even recognize the basis of western philosophy.

--------------------------------
Socrates was passive aggressive.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:09 AM (P)

They made him take poison ---are you really sure you want to emulate that kind of "success."

You haven't been able to show one contradiction. When you act dumb with me I explain it "captain simple" in response you claim flaws and then dont actually bother to say what they are. Oh and the fact that capitalism isnt socialism isn't a flaw, the fact that capitalism doesn't work the way you think it should is also not a flaw.

So no I thought about it and I was right, you are an attention whore. I strongly suspect that the reason other people stop talking to you is that evntually they figure it out and understand that wasting their time going over the same ground 1000 times is futile.

B Bye

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:09 AM (P)

They made him take poison ---are you really sure you want to emulate that kind of "success."

You haven't been able to show one contradiction. When you act dumb with me I explain it "captain simple" in response you claim flaws and then dont actually bother to say what they are. Oh and the fact that capitalism isnt socialism isn't a flaw, the fact that capitalism doesn't work the way you think it should is also not a flaw.

So no I thought about it and I was right, you are an attention whore. I strongly suspect that the reason other people stop talking to you is that evntually they figure it out and understand that wasting their time going over the same ground 1000 times is futile.

B Bye

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:37 PM (P)

Quote:
You haven't been able to show one contradiction.

You missed this:

Quote:
You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor. You say that maximal profit isn't the driving force, and then you come up with a prime example. You say that laborers can afford their own products, and then you turn around and immediately point out that they can't.

Anyway, to address your posts in detail:

You keep hammering home the same basic example that Profit= sale price - cost I get it, I get it! That is why manufacturing has shifted from the USA to Japan to Korea to China to Vietnam. But at the same time that you point to cheap labor costs being the driving force for bringing down wages worldwide you turn around and say that it won't matter with illegals in the United States, because something magical happens when they cross the border: and "their" contributions suddenly become "our" wealth, generating "secondary" economic effects. You have failed to note that those "secondary" effects are less than what would have occurred had they not driven down wages in the first place. The goods that they can buy are not going to support the person who was layed off from his decent-paying maufacturing job. While our living standard may decline less quickly with illegals within our borders, it will still decline. Do you have an answer for that?

Prolly not. So while you have fully described a worldwide mechanism for wages to go down there is - in your process - no mechanism for wages to go up. It's a "bend over and enjoy it" premise. But the market, as Adam Smith (You have heard of him?) described it, operates without force or fear. For meaningful negotiations to occur the worker should be just as able to meaningfully w/draw his labor as the owner is to w/draw his employ. But as I said before- a point which you have not addressed- that would require owners and workers to be on a level playing field, and clearly they are not. Therefore, the labor market is broken.

What you are positing is a system that requires stupid consumers. You've said that the owners cannot reliably sell to their own workforce so they look instead towards markets where they can persuade people with more money than sense to let go of $120 for a $5 product. What I have asked you to do is consider a global situation (BIG picture) where people still may not have much sense, but they don't have much money either.

And therefore - by YOUR description- capitalism is on is a one-way road to poverty for everyone except the owners. Aside from being unfair, your particular road leads to economic collapse: declining retail market leads to layoffs leads to declining retail market leads to layoff. This is otherwise known as a depression. (You may have heard of those too.)

I'm not talking about socialism, dude. I'm talking about the flow of capital (money): where it goes, who gets it, what it's used for, where it accumulates, etc. .

You apparently are not used to rigorous intellectual discussion. Anyone worth their salt would immediately look at profit and say: AHA! Profit is distributed through pension funds and their stocks, and banks, to a great many more people other than the owners, and therefore recycles money back into circulation Or, we could have examined how Keynes (Have you heard of him?) tried solve the problem, and whether his solution is a complete solution. (Many say not.)

BTW- You have yet to ask me how I define "value". Are you afraid to find out?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:55 PM (P)

It occurs to me that the problem is that we're discussing something in words that needs math. So, let's look at your proposition:

Profit= sale price - labor cost - material cost

Mathematically rearranging:

Labor cost = Sale price- Profit- Material cost

In other words, wages are always less than the amount it would take to buy the product, whether we're talking about a closed system (bowling ball workers trying to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls with a shift's worth of wages) or the entire world. While it is possible to have one group produce, and another consume, in the end when you total it all up workers cannot buy back what they've produced.

So the key question is: what happens with the Profit? (I could go into detail about material costs but they are, in the end, labor costs.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:37 PM (P)

Fletch - "I strongly suspect that the reason other people stop talking to you is that eventually they figure it out and understand that wasting their time going over the same ground 1000 times is futile."

And he hates America.........And he is a condescending douche bag........And I think he rubs camel balls in the evening.......and he said I was a lost cause once.....And he EATS BUGGERS........And.........

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It occurs to me that the problem is that we're discussing something in words that needs math. So, let's look at your proposition:

Profit= sale price - labor cost - material cost

Mathematically rearranging:

Labor cost = Sale price- Profit- Material cost

In other words, wages are always less than the amount it would take to buy the product, whether we're talking about a closed system (bowling ball workers trying to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls with a shift's worth of wages) or the entire world. While it is possible to have one group produce, and another consume, in the end when you total it all up workers cannot buy back what they've produced.

So the key question is: what happens with the Profit? (I could go into detail about material costs but they are, in the end, labor costs.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Still waiting to see those contradictions here. When you show them we may talk, otherwise we are done.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It occurs to me that the problem is that we're discussing something in words that needs math. So, let's look at your proposition:

Profit= sale price - labor cost - material cost

Mathematically rearranging:

Labor cost = Sale price- Profit- Material cost

In other words, wages are always less than the amount it would take to buy the product, whether we're talking about a closed system (bowling ball workers trying to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls with a shift's worth of wages) or the entire world. While it is possible to have one group produce, and another consume, in the end when you total it all up workers cannot buy back what they've produced.

So the key question is: what happens with the Profit? (I could go into detail about material costs but they are, in the end, labor costs.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Still waiting to see those contradictions here. When you show them we may talk, otherwise we are done.

RAZZA

Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...In other words, wages are always less than the amount it would take to buy the product, whether we're talking about a closed system (bowling ball workers trying to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls with a shift's worth of wages) or the entire world. While it is possible to have one group produce, and another consume, in the end when you total it all up workers cannot buy back what they've produced...

Signym:

Not to pile on here with Fletch, but you have a HUGE contradiction here in this statement. Why would a worker at the bowling ball plant want to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls? He wouldn't, obviously, and therefore your point is a little ridiculous. The bowling ball plant worker would only buy one bowling ball, and to make the giant assumptive leap from "he couldn't buy a shifts worth of bowlling balls at the wage he makes in a shifts worth of work" to "he would never be able to buy a bowling ball" is a bit ludicrous. Maybe that wasn't what you were trying to say, but that is how it came across.

Your statement that "workers cannot buy back what they produce" is so obviously flawed that it undercuts any point you are trying to make, though I'm not sure what that point is to tell you the truth. Workers buy the product they produce all the time! So let me get this straight, you believe the Ford Motor Company offers its employees a discount on Ford cars because they know they will never be able to afford them and thus will never have to honor the discount? There are so many flaws in that logic I don't know where to start.

While I agree with some of your earlier statments about immigration, which by the way this thread was originally about, I have to fall on Fletch's side in this whole economics debate you two have derailed the thread to.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

RAZZA

Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
He's the thing. We live in a world where there is real slavery. Where a girl can be snatched off a farm in Romania and end up in a brothel in Nice. Someone who didn't decide to leave her home did not chose the work she does, gains nothing from it and will be killed or injured if she refuses. By contrast most US illegals came here of their own free will, made the journey under their own power, found their own employment and can leave it at any time. And we find that SigNY resents them for taking American jobs and you do it because they are being used by the man. Unless you are 100% native American your ancestors made the same choices these guys did. They probably had the same hardship getting here and may even have lived 15 to a room while they got a start. And yes that means they were probably exploited by those capitalists along the way. You know what? The illegals today and your ancestors back then shared one thing, they both thought themselves better off in America doing shitty jobs than being back where they came from.

Fletch:

No one blames immigrants for making the obvious choice for a better life in our country. You are right, we are all the result of immigrants who came to america seeking the same opportunities, and no one begrudges them that. I support immigration and think we should be raising our set quotas for the number of immigrants coming here and allowing more to enter legally. There is obviously a need for them or else they wouldn't be coming. I do have a problem, however, with people beginning their search for a better life in the United States by thumbing their nose at our laws. You can't blame them when they know our spineless politicians will eventually cave and give them amnesty anyway. Their decision to come here is a no brainer really, and if I were in their shoes I'd probably be doing the same thing. That doesn't make it right, just prudent. My anger is with useless and hypocritical politicians not people seeking a better life.

In another post you said:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In your world the choice is between hiring an illegal at $3/hr and paying an American $8/hr. That's actually a false choice. In truth the industry could not pay $8/hr and remain competative with imports at $3/hr. If the immigrants went the work would go abroad. In work that produces movable product the $8/hr American worker loses nothing to the $3/hr illegal because he would never be offered that job anyway, it would go abroad to a producer with a lower cost base. There are industries like construction and some services, work that has to be done at a fixed local or where the product isnt movable where you could easily replace illegals with better paid Americans but profits are unlikely to fall instead the costs would be passed to the end customer.

These are good points and I think you talked about the benefits of the economic activity of this cheap illegal labor force adding to the local economy as well. This is something I hadn't thought of in the past and bares some consideration. I have to wonder though if that economic benefit outweighs the ancillary costs incurred as a result of the illegal labor being present. We hear anectdotes of hospital emergency rooms closing, schools being overwhelmed with the children of illegals, insurance costs rising, and many others. Couple these costs with the fact that many illegals send a large part of their income back home to their native country and you have to ask, are these local economic boosts resulting from their presence worth it? I don't know the answer to tell you the truth and I think it would be very difficult to quantify either the benefits or the costs. Your thoughts?

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats a

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:00 PM (P)

Razza- I'm talking economic theory.

Lets' say that in one week, all wages paid in the world totalled $0.9 trillion dollars. That's the money in-hand available for purchasing goods. Lets' say capitalists want to sell those produced goods for a 10% profit, for a total of approximately $1 trillion dollars. WHO is going to buy all those products? Certainly not the people who made them, because they only have $0.9 trillion in-hand.

You're right, it IS a conundrum and that's what leads to nasty boom and bust cycles. It took economists a century to figure out what to do about it while still keeping capitalism alive. The first was to institute mandatory dedistribution through taxes. The second was to "inject" money into the economy by extending credit to wage-earners who would otherwise not be able to purchase the totality of what was poduced.

What precipitates depressions is a large and growing inequality in money distribution. That is why economists are looking at the wealth distribution today, the past seven decades, and immediately before and after the Great Depression.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:01 PM (P)

Not to try to answer for SignyM, but since I think it was I who came up with the argument: you have to extend the idea to it's ultimate end to see why workers can't buy what they produce.

Let me come at this a different way - it's been many decades since I went to school so I don't know - do they still teach about 'the company store' ? In effect the entire world is the company, and people have to buy from the company store.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RAZZA

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:22 PM (P)

Signym:

Okay, I see what you are getting at now, but there are a couple of problems with your hypothesis. It assumes that the only consumer of the goods are the people who produced them and completely discounts the existence of the concept of credit. Corporations also consume goods using the profits they garnered by selling the goods their workers produced. I think your statement is a gross oversimplification of a very complex subject.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:32 PM (P)

Umm... I specifically metioned credit as one solution to the problem. And yes, corporations are themselves "consumers". And I haven't even touched on the action of rent and interest, and what happens with "profit". It is a very complex topic which I deliberately simplified for the sake of discussion. But what it turns out is that no matter how many pathways you follow the money through... whether a corporation is a consumer or whether you are looking at retail goods or services... the equation is still the same each time you turn the production/ consumption crank, and the critical parameters are: What is the rate of profit? What happens to "profit"? What is the rate of the increase of money supply? What is the increase in productivity?

I don't want to get into mathematical modeling, but I imagine it can be modeled akin to an elctronic circuit with positive and negative feedback, because the economy oscillates under circumstances where positive feedback takes over.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:34 PM (P)

siggy,
Your argument does not take into account that the owners and the companies that make the 10% profit also make purchases. It also does not take into consideration the service industry for one(There are many others). Nothing is 'made', however wages are paid. This whole thread shows what a full of shit tool you are.........See, economics isn't JUST manufacturing you fucking nutter.....

Edit.....So I guess, in a retarded way you are... correct, the 500 hundred factory workers couldn't buy all the cars they make, but the gardeners, supermarket worker, police officers, firemen , etc....could.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Quote:
I have to wonder though if that economic benefit outweighs the ancillary costs incurred as a result of the illegal labor being present. We hear anectdotes of hospital emergency rooms closing, schools being overwhelmed with the children of illegals, insurance costs rising, and many others. Couple these costs with the fact that many illegals send a large part of their income back home to their native country and you have to ask, are these local economic boosts resulting from their presence worth it? I don't know the answer to tell you the truth and I think it would be very difficult to quantify either the benefits or the costs. Your thoughts?

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

I think that's difficult to quantify in absolute terms. However bear in mind that the wealth created will always be more than the pay someone takes home. Even if the immigrant repatriated his whole check to Mexico muc of the wealth he created would stay in the US.

Depending on the industry there could also be multiplication effects. Let's say that Argentine beef costs $1.5/lb to produce and by the time it reaches US stores it retails at $3.20. US beef costs $2.50/lb to produce and retails for $3.00.

Argentine beef is so cheap because the cost base in that country is much less. Land is less expensive, so is labour and there are lower taxes. With the cost base that exists in the US it would be impossible to match Argentina head to head. I'm sure Sig would be the first to scream if the beef states started paying South American wages. The $3.00/lb US beef price includes the cost of employing cheap immigrant labour. One day the Sig/Rue ticket is elected and evicts all of the imigrants, replacing them with American at a decent wage. This adds an additional 50c/lb to the cost of US beef, which in turn means that fewer people buy it which in turn reduces economies of scale which it turn pushes up prices.

This impacts other folks, ranchers and the people that work for them, guys that sell to ranchers, guys that repair refrigeration equipment, lots of people because the economic benefit of some workers has knock on effects.

On the other hand deporting Juanita who works the late counter at Taco Hell is probably not got going to have a big economic effect.

I'm a legal immigrant. Which means I've waited in line for hours on multiple occasions paid about $1000 in assorted fees collected the mountain of supporting documentation and cant leave the country for more than 6 months without having to do the whole thing over. So yeah from the point of view of fairness I'm not thrilled that other folks can just sneak in. Of course I also make decent pay, I was never in any risk of dying in a desert or drowning to get here.

While I don't like how they got here I am willing to conceed that them being here has benefits to the economy.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:28 PM (P)

Fletch2- I thought I had been very specific about the contradictions within your own posts. And I see that once again you fail to see the big picture. But, as you say, I have a job and a family and I'll be extremely busy for the next couple of days. So when I get the time I will puzzle out how best I can lay it out so simply that even you can follow it.

And yes, that was snarky. I've been pretty much refraining from calling you an idiot, but I don't see the point.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:30 PM (P)

Kaneman, so I guess you get my point in a retarded way. (With apologies to the retarded.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:50 PM (P)

Siggy, there is a village in Texas that needs an idiot...You should go there.

RUE

Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:55 PM (P)

It's probably Crawford. Don't worry, they'll get him back soon.

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Siggy, there is a village in Texas that needs an idiot...You should go there.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:13 PM (P)

Back to the topic........

The American Indian has learned all to well what happens when you don't control immigration

KHYRON

Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The American Indian has learned all to well what happens when you don't control immigration

Lol! Nice one, KM.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's probably Crawford. Don't worry, they'll get him back soon.
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Siggy, there is a village in Texas that needs an idiot...You should go there.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Hey, we are on the same page for once........fucking, somebody shoot me.........

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The American Indian has learned all to well what happens when you don't control immigration
Lol! Nice one, KM.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

It gets funnier every time I read it.........

DRAGONWINE

Friday, June 22, 2007 12:49 AM (P)

Reform won't do anything, a new "fence" or more agents won't do anything. I've got no problem with those that follow the rules and enter legally. Illegal means illegal. They ignore our sovereignity. It pretty much is an invasion, too bad most of our troops are out of town. A country that can't hold it's borders seems pretty sad. I don't expect any answers to come from our wonderful elected officials. They just like it the way it is.

It's a nothing part til you don't got one, then you have to go to ebay.....aaaaagh!

PIRATENEWS

Friday, June 22, 2007 1:24 AM (P)

Get out your pitchforks, tar and feathers:

Quote:

VIDEO: Jewish Lawyers Teach How To NOT Hire An American citizen in USA

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/18/22435/0365

Quote:
"Our goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified U.S. worker. Our objective is to get this person a green card. So certainly we are not going to try to find a place where applicants would be most numerous."
-Lawrence M. Lebowitz, Vice President of Marketing, Cohen & Grigsby

It's on video, believe it or not, and even presented as a selling point to peddle their services by Cohen & Grigsby Law Firm. That's right, this group of attorneys put an entire seminar on how to screw over the American worker on YouTube. Imagine that, a seminar from lawyers on how to make sure one doesn't have to hire an American worker! In the video attorneys explain how they assist employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and how they disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers.

Note that Comedy Central's Jewish superstar Jon Stewart's real name is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_stewart

"Stewart" is well-paid to NOT talk about serious topics, but to joke about them instead, or censor them altogether (such as NeoCon Jews perping the 9/11 Massacres to blame the Arabs). Why is it most "Jews" have zero loyalty to USA or the Constitution, but unlimited loyalty to non-Semitic Khazar "Jews" who are not US citizens? "Stewart" calls himself a "socialist".

British Fabian Socialism is incremental Communism. Socialist is defined as the Nazi National Socialst Party. The Communist Manifesto was written in London England by Jew Karl Marx. Mexican illegal aliens are often Communists, and prefer the Commie "red fist" logo or Marx/Lenin/Trotsky photos on signs during parades and riots in Mexico and USA. Communist China is also staging massive immigration to USA (including jobs in US nuke weapons factories), in addition to stealing millions of US jobs and factories.

So "Stewart" is hired to roast George DWI Bush at the White House Correspondants Dinner, along with his sidekick Steven Colbert.

Will this treason change, before its too late? Is it already too late?

"Son, you're not the first man to piss off a woman and end up stranded on the side of the road. That's why I always take my keys with me when I get out."
-Trucker, Drive

DRIVE VS POLICE STATE: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
OOPS! CANCELLED!!! FINAL EPPS ON JULY 4 8PM EST
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 22, 2007 1:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is one place where my liberal friends and I part company. The only "reform" that our immigration laws need is to drop the allowance that children born in the USA are automatically citizens.... the "anchor baby" provision. IMHO, only children born to USA citizens should be citizens.

I would be willing to trade THAT for amnesty, but not anything else. The current proposal is so unworkable that it is no solution at all.... it's main purpose is to muddy the illegal status of people working in the USA.

That's the funny thing Signy....

The American people on either side of the coin don't want to see this happening and their will is being ignored on this issue. At the same time American politicians in a bi-partisan effort want it to happen because they are the only ones that have anything to gain from it, and at the very same time they'll tell us our economy will collapse without them.

This is just another reason why I will vote for Ron Paul.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 22, 2007 1:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Will this treason change, before its too late? Is it already too late?

It's already too late.

I appreciate your trying to get the truth out there though PN, no matter how many "Heros" there are out there that will try to discredit what you have to say.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

PIRATENEWS

Friday, June 22, 2007 1:31 AM (P)

I suspect Hero is starting to wake up. My diabolical plan is working...

If it's already too late, that just means the Revolutionary fun is starting...

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 22, 2007 1:35 AM (P)

I've been out of the loop at fff.net for a few weeks, so I have no idea what you mean by that, but if it's true, I must say I have no idea how you're doing it.

Maybe beating people over the head with the truth repeatedly does have its merits.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

LEADB

Friday, June 22, 2007 2:59 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Get out your pitchforks, tar and feathers:
Quote:

VIDEO: Jewish Lawyers Teach How To NOT Hire An American citizen in USA

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/18/22435/0365

Ok, the world is coming to an end. I get sent a link today by a coworker and watch it; later, I come home and see that PN has posted the same link. I should start to worry ;-)

Edit: Notes to congress people enroute. If there's a proposal tomorrow to do away with H1-b visa's, I'm taking credit for it ;-)
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 22, 2007 3:37 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
If it's already too late, that just means the Revolutionary fun is starting...

Hehe..... Shiny. Let's be bad guys.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

KANEMAN

Friday, June 22, 2007 2:15 PM (P)

Funny video about Immigration....Indian style.....

SIGNYM

Friday, June 22, 2007 5:05 PM (P)

Sorry for the thread hijack.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Friday, June 22, 2007 10:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

Note that Comedy Central's Jewish superstar Jon Stewart's real name is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_stewart

Note how in another thread you said "Wiki is full of crap"

Does that seem right to you?

And yes, it is too late, Griiiiiingo.

REAVERMAN

Saturday, June 23, 2007 6:53 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Note that Comedy Central's Jewish superstar Jon Stewart's real name is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_stewart

Okay. I'm not seeing how this is relevant to, well, anything. He's admitted to being a jew numerous times, and plenty of people in showbiz change their names to make them sound better (Tom Cruise, Nicholas Cage) or to make their name one that more people could relate to.

Quote:
"Stewart" is well-paid to NOT talk about serious topics, but to joke about them instead, or censor them altogether

Ummm, well, in case you hadn't noted, its a comedy show. Now, I'm no expert, but I think "comedy" and "joke" go together, don't you?

Quote:
(such as NeoCon Jews perping the 9/11 Massacres to blame the Arabs)

They didn't give serious coverage to that because it didn't happen. What reason would jews have to attack the US? We have defended Israel for decades.

Quote:
Why is it most "Jews" have zero loyalty to USA or the constitution

That's funny. have you ever watched "The Daily Show"? Or have you seen some of the interviews that Stuart has given? He (a jew) continuously stands up for the constitution. He (a jew) constantly berates the mainstream media (sometimes on their own shows) for failing in their constitutional duty as the people's watchdogs. Take your uninformed, racist rhetoric somewhere else.

Quote:
Socialist is defined as the Nazi National Socialst Party.

My God, have you ever even laid eyes upon a dictionary? Look it up, and you'll understand just how stupid that makes you sound.

Quote:
Mexican illegal aliens are often Communists, and prefer the Commie "red fist" logo or Marx/Lenin/Trotsky photos on signs...

I'm sure a fair number are communists, because all they have experienced under the capitalist system is poverty and opression. That leads them to believe that the opposite of capitalism would work better for them. It's a reasonable, if ill informed assumption for them to make.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

OLDENGLANDDRY

Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:05 AM (P)

Indeed, many people change their names. For example PIRATENEWS, aka; John Lee, aka; Johan Liebowitz, the descendant of a Jewish Illegal alien who proof-read the Communist Manifesto for Karl Marx in Londonshire Englandland.
John Lee is defined as LI, a commie Chinese Jewish illegal alien, Mexican Nazi as as defined in Wikipedia under "Nutters".

Does that seem right to you?

By the way, how do you like Salmon Rushdie's Knighthood? That must realy get up your voluminous nose.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE