OK Antis... what do you want?

[shanemac]

So you're against racism, and pro-homosexuality, feminism multi-culturalism and all that kind of stuff...

How do you see the future? What would be the best future for the world (especially western countries) in your opinion?

[harjit]

I'm mostly fine with how things are now.

Of course it's never perfect. In fact most changes I'd like to see are stuff that many WNs would agree with - less corporatism, communities having more control of their destiny, a simpler world, far less third-world population.

[Hartmann von Aue]

In other words, he's happy with current trends, and all that entails, except he wants to sterilize his less fortunate brethren in the Indian countryside, and he would also like to pay lip-service to some sort of democratic anarchistic socialism, etc.

[Hakluyt]

- A world where immigration, and the concomitant social problems, is not necessary in the first place.

- Banning American movies and television. We wouldn't even think in terms of 'race' around here if we weren't bombared by it via American media.

- Preserving multicultural policy as the best way to avoid assimilation, and thus the further loss of our own identity. The American experience shows us that while assimilationist policy creates a more docile and integrated immigrant population, it waters down and eventually destroys the ethnic character of the native population.

[raven]

- A world where immigration, and the concomitant social problems, is not necessary in the first place.Yes, we should seek to destroy the social conditions abroad (gross poverty and income inequality) and at home (corporations seeking to exploit workers with lower and lower wages, thus turning to immigrant labor) that force people to migrate from their homelands. In Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, etc. very few are migrating to North America now because these countries are now prosperous. The immigrants themselves are not the guilty parties and should not be made the scapegoats. It's natural for people to want to migrate when they can barely support their families in their native country or when they face war and political persecution. Rather corrupt foreign policy, corrupt foreign politics and greedy corporations operating domestically are to blame. Penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants, pressure employers to pay workers livable wages and you'll see locals do the jobs that they supposedly don't want to do and try to better conditions of citizens abroad. We have to solve the problem, not just the symptoms.


- Preserving multicultural policy as the best way to avoid assimilation, and thus the further loss of our own identity. The American experience shows us that while assimilationist policy creates a more docile and integrated immigrant population, it waters down and eventually destroys the ethnic character of the native population.The Black and Hispanic racial identity politics as well as Muslim identity politics (a European and Canadian issue) is still an issue though. If groups want to maintain their own cultural ties (fair enough), they still have to be respectful of the majority population and culture. ie. Don't demand preferential treatment for your racial group from the government. Don't demand Shariah Law. etc. America and Canada (through American influence) are race-obsessed societies. Racial minorities (particularly Blacks, Hispanics and Muslims) have a real chip on their shoulder against "white people" (a very diverse section of the population that shouldn't all be lumped into one category) and this makes overcoming racial/ethnic tensions a very difficult problem. Instead of looking to the racial identity politics of America, racial minorities and Muslims in Canada should look towards Italians, Irish, Portuguese, Greeks, Poles, etc. as examples of how to preserve your culture while maintaining civility with the dominant Anglo-Franco culture. Similarly, Blacks and Hispanics in the US should look towards these groups in Canada (in the US not so much because they are mostly all assimilated) as examples to follow and stop blaming people of European descent for all their problems. Naturally, I'm sure you find it a concern that there are many within the non-European minority that are hostile towards people of European descent.

[harjit]

...except he wants to sterilize his less fortunate brethren in the Indian countryside...

Question for you, Pounce.

What is the difference between the accident of birth that prevented ME from being one of those less fortunate people, and the the accident of birth that prevented YOU from being one of them?

A related question - why should they be considered my brethren, and not yours?

[shanemac]

I'm mostly fine with how things are now.

Of course it's never perfect. In fact most changes I'd like to see are stuff that many WNs would agree with - less corporatism, communities having more control of their destiny, a simpler world, far less third-world population.

With continuous large-scale 3rd world immigration to countries like Canada, is it not inevitable that these countries will eventually become 3rd world themselves? Thus adding more to the 3rd world population.

[MrRS]

What do they want?

This is what they want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

http://www.markgerber.com/images/books/brave_new_world.jpg

[Kamandi]

With continuous large-scale 3rd world immigration to countries like Canada, is it not inevitable that these countries will eventually become 3rd world themselves? Thus adding more to the 3rd world population.
No, because '3rd world' describes a level of economic development, not a level of epidermal pigmentation.

We're not going to shift gears in reverse to become pre-industrialized (if that were even possible) just because more emigrees from developing nations enter our labor force and increase our production.

[President Barbicane]

We're not going to shift gears in reverse to become pre-industrialized (if that were even possible) just because more emigrees from developing nations enter our labor force and increase our production.

The immigrants may increase our total production, but I highly doubt they increase our per capita production, and per capita production is the production I really care about. Also, even if per capita wealth were to increase due to immigration the concentration of wealth may increase; and I don't consider that to be a good thing.

[Ahknaton]

What do they want?

This is what they want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

http://www.markgerber.com/images/books/brave_new_world.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/Stormfronter/brave_new_world.jpg

http://www.violently-happy.net/musings/pix/menorah.jpg

[Hartmann von Aue]

Question for you, Pounce.

What is the difference between the accident of birth that prevented ME from being one of those less fortunate people, and the the accident of birth that prevented YOU from being one of them?

Did I say there was Sahib? What is an "accident of birth" anyway? I suppose if I were Hindu I wouldn't believe it was an accident that I wasn't born a squirrel.

A related question - why should they be considered my brethren, and not yours?

Well, they're Indian, and you're Indian. There are many Catholics in India, so those would be my brethren.

[Kamandi]

According to Hindu belief, you could only be born a squirrel if you had been lustful in a past life, or for some reason, chose to think of a squirrel at the time of your last death.

[Kamandi]

The immigrants may increase our total production, but I highly doubt they increase our per capita production, and per capita production is the production I really care about. Also, even if per capita wealth were to increase due to immigration the concentration of wealth may increase; and I don't consider that to be a good thing.
1. Per-capita production isn't the benchmark of anything in particular, at least relative to the GDP. If production increases, the economy expands and our standard of living rises, all other things being equal.

2. In a capitalist society, wealth always concentrates into fewer hands no matter what you do. That's just how capitalism works.

[Starr]

No, because '3rd world' describes a level of economic development, not a level of epidermal pigmentation.

We're not going to shift gears in reverse to become pre-industrialized (if that were even possible) just because more emigrees from developing nations enter our labor force and increase our production.


What often happens when you have neighborhoods that have a large non white or immigrant population? Are the conditions often not reminiscent of the third world. This holds true even of peoples who have lived in first world western nations for generation upon generation, blacks for example. What will more of them mean if this pattern continues to hold up?

[Warka]

No, because '3rd world' describes a level of economic development, not a level of epidermal pigmentation.

We're not going to shift gears in reverse to become pre-industrialized (if that were even possible) just because more emigrees from developing nations enter our labor force and increase our production.

The immigration of Southern negroes to Detroit puts lie to this claim. I invite you here if you doubt the city is 3rd-world in essence and has reverted to pre-industrialization.

[Kamandi]

Detroit is the focus of the nation's auto manufacturing, so the idea it's 'pre-industrial' is bullshit.

[Kamandi]

What often happens when you have neighborhoods that have a large non white or immigrant population? Are the conditions often not reminiscent of the third world. This holds true even of peoples who have lived in first world western nations for generation upon generation, blacks for example. What will more of them mean if this pattern continues to hold up?
Again, 'Third World' is a level of economic development, not a litmus of cultural patterns.

[Warka]

Detroit is the focus of the nation's auto manufacturing, so the idea it's 'pre-industrial' is bullshit.

Point me to a single major automobile manufacturing facility left within the city of Detroit.

They're all out in the 'burbs nowadays, genius. We're discussing Detroit. The companies fled the 3rd world-ization of the city proper.

[shanemac]

Detroit is the focus of the nation's auto manufacturing, so the idea it's 'pre-industrial' is bullshit.

The manufacturing industries came to Detroit before the negroes. The groids just went to a thriving city that whitie had built and rained their destructive plague on that city and its now a ruined shell of what it once was.

[President Barbicane]

1. Per-capita production isn't the benchmark of anything in particular, at least relative to the GDP. If production increases, the economy expands and our standard of living rises, all other things being equal.

If production isn't the benchmark of anything in particular, why did you bring it up?

[Count Sudoku]

Detroit is the focus of the nation's auto manufacturing, so the idea it's 'pre-industrial' is bullshit.

Go take a look at Zimbabwe or South Africa if you want to see Third Worlders turn a country to shit.

http://southafricanhell.blogspot.com/

[Starr]

Again, 'Third World' is a level of economic development, not a litmus of cultural patterns.


Explain please why third world patterns seem to follow third world peoples even when they are given the advantages of living in a first world nation. Why is it that when certain peoples move into once thriving areas, the areas began to go downhill rather quickly? This is a pattern repeated all throughout this country and other parts of the western world as they become browner. Are we supposed to ignore this?

[Kamandi]

Point me to a single major automobile manufacturing facility left within the city of Detroit.

They're all out in the 'burbs nowadays, genius. We're discussing Detroit. The companies fled the 3rd world-ization of the city proper.
It's all the Detroit metropolitan area for economic purposes.

Very few manufacturing plants operate in the middle of big cities. Economies of scale are key in all kinds of manufacturing and commercial space is too expensive in urban areas.

[Kamandi]

Explain please why third world patterns seem to follow third world peoples even when they are given the advantages of living in a first world nation. Why is it that when certain peoples move into once thriving areas, the areas began to go downhill rather quickly? This is a pattern repeated all throughout this country and other parts of the western world as they become browner. Are we supposed to ignore this?
Well, I'll bet that, for one, you consider an area to be 'going downhill' based solely on the racial composition of the community.

[Mark]

Well, I'll bet that, for one, you consider an area to be 'going downhill' based solely on the racial composition of the community.Even if she didn't, funny how the short list would be, for all intents and purposes, the same.

All our fault, regardless, ain't it.

[Felix the Cat]

I wonder how much the decline of Detroit had to do with the Cold War - as the industrial heart of the US it would have been a primary target for the Soviets in time of war.

Even without racial disorders, that's not the sort of place you would want to raise a family in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Warka]

It's all the Detroit metropolitan area for economic purposes.

Very few manufacturing plants operate in the middle of big cities. Economies of scale are key in all kinds of manufacturing and commercial space is too expensive in urban areas.

Again, the reality of the situation flies in the face of your theory. Detroit real estate is some of the cheapest in the nation, much much cheaper than that in the surrounding 'burbs!

Up until the middle of the last century, nearly 75% of the Big 3's plants were located in Detroit proper. Since '67 when the fork was stuck in it, nearly all of the manufacturing facilities have been moved out of the city to more expensive suburban environs. Detroit today is full of hundreds of thousands of acres of empty prime plug-and-play industrial land available for practically free (!) and yet still no one wants to bring business here because of the condition the negroes have created.

Try again.

[Kamandi]

No commercial inner-city property large enough to build an auto manufacturing plant on is less expensive than buying the land raw and developing it themselves in the suburbs, which is what they did. Besides, the land the plants were built on appreciated so much over the decades that they were sitting on a huge pile of cash.

And that's not even considering the higher city taxes.

[Warka]

No commercial inner-city property large enough to build an auto manufacturing plant on is less expensive than buying the land raw and developing it themselves in the suburbs, which is what they did. Besides, the land the plants were built on appreciated so much over the decades that they were sitting on a huge pile of cash.

Any commercial inner-city property a company's owned and developed for decades and has paid for a thousand times over is much less expensive than buying new raw land and developing it themselves in the suburbs. As for property value, GM/Ford/Chrysler are in the automaking business, not real estate speculation.

And that's not even considering the higher city taxes.

Detroit city tax breaks for businesses are among the most generous in the nation and have been for decades as they desperately but unsuccessfully try to retain what little they have and attract new investors.

Face it- it's the niggers. Try again.

[Kamandi]

Any commercial inner-city property a company's owned and developed for decades and has paid for a thousand times over is much less expensive than buying new raw land and developing it themselves in the suburbs. As for property value, GM/Ford/Chrysler are in the automaking business, not real estate speculation.
1. They moved out to the 'burbs in the 70's when raw land there was still cheap. Much cheaper than trying to expand plant space in the city.

2. Whether they're in the real estate speculation biz or not - I'm sure they're still investing in real estate today - the land they built their plants on in the city had appreciated numerous times over, so they got a ton of profit when they sold it.

Detroit city tax breaks for businesses are among the most generous in the nation and have been for decades as they desperately but unsuccessfully try to retain what little they have and attract new investors.
I doubt that was true thirty plus years ago when inner-city manufacturing was still booming in Detroit. Then, the city commercial taxes were likely very high.

Face it- it's the niggers. Try again.
No, probably not. Blacks are amongst their most important workers.

[klipgeit]

According to Hindu belief, you could only be born a squirrel if you had been lustful in a past life, or for some reason, chose to think of a squirrel at the time of your last death.

Darn,my name is Dok,my mom was wrong it should have been dog.:deadhorse:

[shanemac]

This is a classic anti performance from Kamandi. ...

Create multiple bullshit excuses and spurious reasons for something for which the reason is absolutely blindingly obvious.

[Warka]

Blacks are amongst their most important workers.

Yes, because everyone knows negroes inherently excel at manufacturing/producing and when it comes to quality, no one does it like they do. Not only that, they're also any employer's wet dream due to the fact they avoid alcohol/drugs resulting in less missed work, are extremely safety conscious, are staunch anti-unionists and veritable wellsprings of creativity and on-the-job problem-solving ability. Obviously, any company truly desiring success would be nuts not to employ as many of them as possible.

Where, oh, where would we be without the negro leading the way and showing us how it's done? :rofl:

[Hachiko]

Yes, because everyone knows negroes inherently excel at manufacturing/producing and when it comes to quality, no one does it like they do. Not only that, they're also any employer's wet dream due to the fact they avoid alcohol/drugs resulting in less missed work, are extremely safety conscious, are staunch anti-unionists and veritable wellsprings of creativity and on-the-job problem-solving ability. Obviously, any company truly desiring success would be nuts not to employ as many of them as possible.

Where, oh, where would we be without the negro leading the way and showing us how it's done? :rofl:

No need to remind me, Prac. Why, here in NYC we have the DMV, MTA and USPS to remind us just how valuable they are as workers.
Bastions of efficiency they are.

[President Barbicane]

1. Per-capita production isn't the benchmark of anything in particular, at least relative to the GDP. If production increases, the economy expands and our standard of living rises, all other things being equal.

OK, I've been thinking about it, and I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that allowing immigrants into the US will increase our real GDP. This is certainly true, and you get no argument from me on this point. I do not think, however, is that an increase in real GDP necessarily translates to an increase in standard of living. Around the world many countries have a somewhat higher GDP than others, but a lower standard of living. For instance, the People's Republic of China has a higher GDP than Japan, but Japan seems to have a higher standard of living. This is probably because China has about 10 times as many people as Japan, so the *per capita* GDP is much higher in Japan than in China. While immigration certainly increases real GDP in the US, it is highly doubtful to me that it increases per capita GDP. This is a big reason I think America should reduce immigration.

2. In a capitalist society, wealth always concentrates into fewer hands no matter what you do. That's just how capitalism works.
I think this is true to a certain extent. But I believe immigration exacerbates the tendency to concentrate wealth. In America immigrants have a greater tendency to be labor rather than capital. This means that generally immigrants come to America to look for work rather than coming to America to start a business and employ Americans. Certainly some immigrants come to America and start businesses that employ native born Americans, but these are the exception, not the rule.

Since immigrants have a tendency to compete with Americans for jobs instead of start businesses that employ Americans, immigration tends to depress wages. This will increase profits (especially corporate profits), and these tend to accumulate into the hands of a relatively few people. This increases the concentration of wealth. The thing is a reduction in immigration would stop this tendency, and wealth concentration would decrease regardless of how many immigrants were here already. This means that considering only concentration of wealth it is never too late to start reducing immigration.

[Starr]

Well, I'll bet that, for one, you consider an area to be 'going downhill' based solely on the racial composition of the community.


No, it is based on common conditions of the state of the community. Conditions that seem to follow blacks like a shadow wherever they go. Do a search on the most violent cities in this country and you will find that every one of them has a larger than average black population. Many of them over half. There is an easily recognizable pattern here(and it is far from a pattern seen even in any one nation) so if no other facts are immediately available, judging an area due to its racial compostion is valid.

[Hachiko]

Originally Posted by Kamandi
Well, I'll bet that, for one, you consider an area to be 'going downhill' based solely on the racial composition of the community.


No, it is based on common conditions of the state of the community. Conditions that seem to follow blacks like a shadow wherever they go. Do a search on the most violent cities in this country and you will find that every one of them has a larger than average black population. Many of them over half. It is a easily recognizable pattern of poverty and lawlessnews( it is universal even) to anyone who does not shut their eyes to it.


Kamandi says chicken, Starr says egg. Either way, too many blacks make up a fowl environ. :D

[Kamandi]

Yes, because everyone knows negroes inherently excel at manufacturing/producing and when it comes to quality, no one does it like they do.
No, everyone knows blacks are available for low-paying manufacturing jobs, which is why large proportions of their labor force are black. Freaking Joseph Jackson supported Michael, Jermaine, Tito, LaToya and Janet working on the assembly line at GM's Detroit plant in the 50's and 60's. And he wasn't an anomaly.

[Kamandi]

This is a classic anti performance from Kamandi. ...

Create multiple bullshit excuses and spurious reasons for something for which the reason is absolutely blindingly obvious.
No, the racist explanation is obviously bullshit. They would have moved out to the suburbs long before the 70's and 80's if they just wanted to escape blacks ... except for the huge percentage of their workers who happen to be black.

The 70's were the era of gas lines, oil embargoes and stagflation. They couldn't afford to pay exorbitant city taxes and sit on a huge pile of appreciated equity. If they ever wanted to expand, they had to move someplace it was economically feasible.

[Kamandi]

Around the world many countries have a somewhat higher GDP than others, but a lower standard of living. For instance, the People's Republic of China has a higher GDP than Japan, but Japan seems to have a higher standard of living.
That may have something to do with facts like:

1. China has 1.2 billion citizens, while Japan has 128 million, so achieving full employment is far more difficult in China.

2. China is a communist nation and communism and socialism are famous for producing a low standard of living; while Japan is a highly capitalistic nation.

3. Japan is a fully industrialized nation, while China is still largely agrarian, with only partial industrialization.

4. China is still developing its venture capital supply and economic infrastructure, while Japan has a vast pool for investment created by the profits of its multinational corporations.

Etc. Etc. Etc.


This is probably because China has about 10 times as many people as Japan, so the *per capita* GDP is much higher in Japan than in China.
See above.

While immigration certainly increases real GDP in the US, it is highly doubtful to me that it increases per capita GDP. This is a big reason I think America should reduce immigration.
It's impossible to achieve economic growth in a nation with zero population growth and full employment without immigration.

You actually have to have more people available to make and do more stuff.

I think this is true to a certain extent. But I believe immigration exacerbates the tendency to concentrate wealth. In America immigrants have a greater tendency to be labor rather than capital.
It's well-known that immigrants to the US tend to be highly entrepreneurial.

This means that generally immigrants come to America to look for work rather than coming to America to start a business and employ Americans. Certainly some immigrants come to America and start businesses that employ native born Americans, but these are the exception, not the rule.
Evidence?

Since immigrants have a tendency to compete with Americans for jobs instead of start businesses that employ Americans
Evidence?

[President Barbicane]

That may have something to do with facts like:

1. China has 1.2 billion citizens, while Japan has 128 million, so achieving full employment is far more difficult in China.

2. China is a communist nation and communism and socialism are famous for producing a low standard of living; while Japan is a highly capitalistic nation.

3. Japan is a fully industrialized nation, while China is still largely agrarian, with only partial industrialization.

4. China is still developing its venture capital supply and economic infrastructure, while Japan has a vast pool for investment created by the profits of its multinational corporations.

Yes, that's true, Kamandi. I agree with you entirely on all of that, and if you read my comments carefully I said nothing that contradicts this. What I said was that China has a higher GDP than Japan does, but even so it has a *lower* standard of living. You seem to be saying that higher GDP=higher standard of living, but this model is too simplistic.


It's impossible to achieve economic growth in a nation with zero population growth and full employment without immigration.

You actually have to have more people available to make and do more stuff.

It is true that having more people available to make and do stuff will raise real GDP. But there are a couple of errors in your thinking:

1. Economic growth can be achieved without population growth and/or an increase in employment: Through gains in productivity. An hours work on a modern farm produces far more corn than an hours work did a hundred years ago; this is because now we have tractors, combine harvesters, etc. which make it possible to produce far more in less time.

2. If the people who immigrate to America have lower productivity than the native-born Americans, then although real GDP will rise, real GDP per capita will not, and the standard of living will go down. Increasing real GDP at the expense of standard of living is a foolish policy.


It's well-known that immigrants to the US tend to be highly entrepreneurial.

Evidence?

[Kamandi]

Yes, that's true, Kamandi. I agree with you entirely on all of that, and if you read my comments carefully I said nothing that contradicts this. What I said was that China has a higher GDP than Japan does, but even so it has a *lower* standard of living. You seem to be saying that higher GDP=higher standard of living, but this model is too simplistic.
Okay, fair enough.

It is true that having more people available to make and do stuff will raise real GDP. But there are a couple of errors in your thinking:
That remains to be seen.

1. Economic growth can be achieved without population growth and/or an increase in employment: Through gains in productivity. An hours work on a modern farm produces far more corn than an hours work did a hundred years ago; this is because now we have tractors, combine harvesters, etc. which make it possible to produce far more in less time.
Yes, but not with our current full employment. Note that technological innovation of the type you suggest CAN improve productivity, but requires a labor force to research, design, protype, tool up, manufacture, distribute, deploy, operate and maintain.

That's not possible in a full employment scenario without population growth.

2. If the people who immigrate to America have lower productivity than the native-born Americans, then although real GDP will rise, real GDP per capita will not, and the standard of living will go down. Increasing real GDP at the expense of standard of living is a foolish policy.
1. There's no evidence whatsoever that the immigrants are less productive.

2. Economic growth cannot occur at all with full employment and no natural population growth, unless workers are added to labor force through immigration.

3. If production increases, profits increase as long as demand remains constant. Immigration would actually have to LOWER demand for products while increasing the population to decrease profitability while increasing production.

Needless to say, it's very hard to imagine that's realistic.

4. If profits increase, the tax base increases and the venture capital supply expands, which allows businesses to fund their expansion and start-up costs.

Which quite naturally leads to more productivity and economic growth. There's no particular reason to believe that would only be true if GDP per capita rises. It seems to me the idea that GDP per capita is more important that adjusted GDP alone is just a dogma with no rationale to support it.

Evidence?
You've never been to a Korean grocery, Greek diner, Pakistani bagel stand, Indian-owned 7/11, Japanese corporation, Jewish tailor, etc.?

[Winston]

It's well-known that immigrants to the US tend to be highly entrepreneurial.

That only seems to hold true for those who have crossed oceans to reach the country.

[Kamandi]

Except for all the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans that own restaurants and bodegas, etc.

[Winston]

Except for all the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans that own restaurants and bodegas, etc.

A tiny proportion.

[MrAngry]

No, the racist explanation is obviously bullshit. They would have moved out to the suburbs long before the 70's and 80's if they just wanted to escape blacks ... except for the huge percentage of their workers who happen to be black.

The 70's were the era of gas lines, oil embargoes and stagflation. They couldn't afford to pay exorbitant city taxes and sit on a huge pile of appreciated equity. If they ever wanted to expand, they had to move someplace it was economically feasible.

This was happening in Western Europe at the same time and continues to this day. Just to add that the cost of retooling, the aging fabric of the buildings, civils, services and capital replacement of manufacturing equipment also made the business case to relocate more compelling.

[Kamandi]

A tiny proportion.
No different than the proportion of whites who own restaurants or delis, I would imagine.

[Winston]

No different than the proportion of whites who own restaurants or delis, I would imagine.
The topic was recent immigrants.

[Kamandi]

Be that as it may.

[President Barbicane]

1. There's no evidence whatsoever that the immigrants are less productive.

Do you have any evidence on the productivity of immigrants? I've been googling for a while but I couldn't find a single paper. The closest thing I found was this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KXG/is_1_4/ai_85464251

It didn't examine the productivity of the immigrants directly, but rather the effect that immigration had on productivity. According to that paper, productivity rose more slowly in areas with high immigration than in areas with little or no immigration. This highly suggests to me that the immigrants aren't as productive as native born Americans.


2. Economic growth cannot occur at all with full employment and no natural population growth, unless workers are added to labor force through immigration.

As I have said before, economic growth can occur through increases in productivity. But even if what you say were true, you're missing the point. Economic growth is not necessarily a good thing. If population grows faster than GDP, GDP per capita goes down and quality of life also probably goes down.


3. If production increases, profits increase as long as demand remains constant. Immigration would actually have to LOWER demand for products while increasing the population to decrease profitability while increasing production.

Profits don't necessarily increase if production increases. Increasing the quantity of a good on the market will lower its price. This is basic economics.



Needless to say, it's very hard to imagine that's realistic.

4. If profits increase, the tax base increases and the venture capital supply expands, which allows businesses to fund their expansion and start-up costs.

OK, is there any evidence that immigration has led to the tax base increasing and venture capital supply expanding?



Which quite naturally leads to more productivity and economic growth. There's no particular reason to believe that would only be true if GDP per capita rises. It seems to me the idea that GDP per capita is more important that adjusted GDP alone is just a dogma with no rationale to support it.


I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that immigration will stimulate economic growth so that --long term-- native Americans will be better off if immigration is allowed now.

This may be true, but your conclusion rests on really shaky empirical foundations.


You've never been to a Korean grocery, Greek diner, Pakistani bagel stand, Indian-owned 7/11, Japanese corporation, Jewish tailor, etc.?


Hmm. Never been to a Korean grocery. I used to eat lunch at a Greek-owned restaurant. Very good food, and one of the waitresses was HOT. Interestingly, I have never been to an Indian owned 7/11 (that I know of), even though it's a stereotype. Of course I've been to a Japanese corporation. I have never been to a Jewish tailor.

One of the things I notice is that none of the examples you raise is Mexican, although more immigrants to the US come from Mexico than any other country.

Of course there are tons of Mexican restaurants around, and I used to go to this Mexican restaurant down the street (really good enchiladas), but I don't think that on the whole Mexicans are very entrepreneurial.

Anecdotes aside, is there any rigorous data that immigrants are entrepreneurial? Keep in mind I am not saying that immigrants don't start any businesses, I am just saying that immigrants start fewer businesses than native-born Americans.

Of course, any data on immigrant-owned businesses would have to correct for the fact that minority-owned businesses may qualify for affirmative action as a "small-disadvantaged" business.

[Basil Fawlty]

2. Economic growth cannot occur at all with full employment and no natural population growth, unless workers are added to labor force through immigration.Do you think that's a bad thing? That sounds like a more or less ideal socety on the face of it.

[Kamandi]

According to that paper, productivity rose more slowly in areas with high immigration than in areas with little or no immigration. This highly suggests to me that the immigrants aren't as productive as native born Americans.
Not necessarily: as your source noted, for example, "the slower growth may result from the gradual assimilation process many immigrants undergo as they acquire language skills and familiarity with U.S. institutions"

Economic growth is not necessarily a good thing.
Economic growth always has a positive effect on standard of living, democracy and the nation's mood. Unfortunately, it has a negative affect on the environment in many cases.

If population grows faster than GDP, GDP per capita goes down and quality of life also probably goes down.
Again, there's no evidence that GDP per capita is a better predictor of quality of life than real GDP, at least that I've ever seen.

Profits don't necessarily increase if production increases. Increasing the quantity of a good on the market will lower its price. This is basic economics.
Actually, prices decrease if supply increases AND demand remains constant. A few points:

1. Demand for products usually increases as the population does.

2. Increased productivity doesn't just mean more of the same. It also means new products and services.

3. In the context of international trade in a globalized economy, higher productivity means penetrating new markets, not necessarily saturating the same markets.

4. In fact, the immigrants usually send money home, increasing the demand for our products in their home country.

5. Increased production means economies of scale, lowering manufacturing cost and raising profits.

OK, is there any evidence that immigration has led to the tax base increasing and venture capital supply expanding?
Historically, they have been positively correlated.

I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that immigration will stimulate economic growth so that --long term-- native Americans will be better off if immigration is allowed now.
Yep.

This may be true, but your conclusion rests on really shaky empirical foundations.
Not that I can see.

Hmm. Never been to a Korean grocery.
New York is filled with them.

I used to eat lunch at a Greek-owned restaurant. Very good food, and one of the waitresses was HOT.
:)

One of the things I notice is that none of the examples you raise is Mexican, although more immigrants to the US come from Mexico than any other country.
They're mostly migrant farmworkers.

Anecdotes aside, is there any rigorous data that immigrants are entrepreneurial? Keep in mind I am not saying that immigrants don't start any businesses, I am just saying that immigrants start fewer businesses than native-born Americans.
That doesn't seem to be the case. For example:

31 percent of the engineering and technology companies founded from 1995 to 2005 in the eleven technology centers that we surveyed had an immigrant as a key founder

http://research.kauffman.org

Of course, any data on immigrant-owned businesses would have to correct for the fact that minority-owned businesses may qualify for affirmative action as a "small-disadvantaged" business.
So what? It doesn't make them any less entrepreneurial, if that's even so.

[President Barbicane]

Not necessarily: as your source noted, for example, "the slower growth may result from the gradual assimilation process many immigrants undergo as they acquire language skills and familiarity with U.S. institutions"

OK, immigrants are less productive because they need to acquire language skills and familiarity with U.S. institutions. I don't see how this refutes my point.


Economic growth always has a positive effect on standard of living, democracy and the nation's mood. Unfortunately, it has a negative affect on the environment in many cases.

Again, there's no evidence that GDP per capita is a better predictor of quality of life than real GDP, at least that I've ever seen.

Real GDP increases quality of living because there's more stuff out there. That's all GDP is, anyway, is just stuff that gets sold (it could be products or services, so not necessarily physical stuff, but you get the idea). If there's more stuff, then GDP is higher, and our quality of living is higher, because everyone has more stuff. Certainly, my quality of living would be higher if I had another house (I'm trying to get myself into a position where I can buy one). Now GDP ignores stuff that isn't actually sold (Robert Kennedy has a great speech about what isn't included in our Gross National Product. You can watch it on youtube), so it isn't perfect, but generally GDP is a good predictor for standard of living. But if there are more people even if there is more stuff each individual person has less. That is why GDP per capita matters. To be honest, I don't see why total GDP matters at all. As I said previously, China has the second highest total GDP in the world, but the standard of living for most people there is really poor. That's what happens when you have 1.3 billion mouths to feed.


Historically, they have been positively correlated.

Maybe, but are they correlated now? Quite a lot of states have revenue problems, and it seems to me that the states with lots of immigrants (California, New York) tend to have worse revenue problems then the other states. I'm not sure what the correlation is, I'll try to find some data and do up an excel spreadsheet.


31 percent of the engineering and technology companies founded from 1995 to 2005 in the eleven technology centers that we surveyed had an immigrant as a key founder

OK, a couple of things:

1. Look at the words there. 31 percent of the companies had an immigrant as a key founder, but probably not all of their key founders were immigrants. For instance Sun Microsystems' founders included two immigrants (Vinod Khosla and Andy Bechtolsheim), and two non-immigrants (Scott McNealy and Bill Joy).

2. My point in mentioning this was that even if immigration does increase real GDP, it may not increase most people's quality of life because it may lead to greater concentration of wealth. If immigrants do come to America with capital (which seems unlikely to me), and entrepreneurship (which seems more likely to me after reading that abstract) then it may not cause the concentration of wealth problems, but I'm still unconvinced that immigration increases the standard of living in the US.


So what? It doesn't make them any less entrepreneurial, if that's even so.

Affirmative action makes their business more likely to succeed. If convenience stores tend to be owned by Indians that may be because the Indians received low-interest loans as a small-disadvantaged business, and their (white) competitors were unable to compete. I'm not sure if affirmative action explains the apparent tendency of Indians to own convenience stores. On the one hand, it couldn't hurt, but on the other hand I understand many convenience stores in England are owned by Indian immigrants. Maybe it's more of a cultural thing.

[Kamandi]

OK, immigrants are less productive because they need to acquire language skills and familiarity with U.S. institutions. I don't see how this refutes my point.
It would mean that they have a slower ramp-up, not necessarily that they're less productive overall.

Real GDP increases quality of living because there's more stuff out there. That's all GDP is, anyway, is just stuff that gets sold
It's stuff that gets produced. Not everything that's produced and consumed is necessarily sold.

But if there are more people even if there is more stuff each individual person has less. That is why GDP per capita matters.
That presumes quite falsely that in a capitalist nation, wealth is distributed evenly. It's not.

To be honest, I don't see why total GDP matters at all.
Because increases in real GDP = increased revenues = increased profits = increased tax base and venture capital supply = economic growth.

As I said previously, China has the second highest total GDP in the world, but the standard of living for most people there is really poor. That's what happens when you have 1.3 billion mouths to feed.
No, it's what happens in any centrally planned economy on a large scale.

Maybe, but are they correlated now?
Quite likely, all other things being equal. A lot of other factors would have to be controlled for.

Quite a lot of states have revenue problems, and it seems to me that the states with lots of immigrants (California, New York) tend to have worse revenue problems then the other states.
That's largely because those states aren't compensated for the costs of absorption and the stress on state services. That could be remedied by refunding sales tax to the state.

1. Look at the words there. 31 percent of the companies had an immigrant as a key founder, but probably not all of their key founders were immigrants. For instance Sun Microsystems' founders included two immigrants (Vinod Khosla and Andy Bechtolsheim), and two non-immigrants (Scott McNealy and Bill Joy).
Even if that's true, that tends to undermine the claim that recent immigrants - a small proportion of the population - are less entrepreneurial.

2. My point in mentioning this was that even if immigration does increase real GDP, it may not increase most people's quality of life because it may lead to greater concentration of wealth.
Concentration of wealth also leads to a higher quality of life: that money is ultimately saved and becomes new venture capital so more people can fund their business plans.

That means a higher GDP plus more and better jobs.

If immigrants do come to America with capital (which seems unlikely to me), and entrepreneurship (which seems more likely to me after reading that abstract) then it may not cause the concentration of wealth problems, but I'm still unconvinced that immigration increases the standard of living in the US.
If they:

1. Increase GDP, and

2. Keep the economy from collapsing.

They've improved the standard of living.

Affirmative action makes their business more likely to succeed.
Although I'm not sure if those programs are available to recent non-citizen immigrants, it still doesn't make them any less entrepreneurial.

[Kamandi]

Do you think that's a bad thing? That sounds like a more or less ideal socety on the face of it.
No, because it's impossible to achieve economic growth under those conditions. And an economy has to grow to avoid stationing.

[President Barbicane]

It would mean that they have a slower ramp-up, not necessarily that they're less productive overall.

If they have a slower ramp-up then by definition they're less productive overall. Their yearly productivity may converge on that of native-born Americans eventually, but overall they have a lower productivity.


It's stuff that gets produced. Not everything that's produced and consumed is necessarily sold.


Interesting. What do you mean?


That presumes quite falsely that in a capitalist nation, wealth is distributed evenly. It's not.


It is true that wealth is not distributed evenly in a capitalist nation. But this has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand. Real GDP per capita is a better predictor of standard of living than real GDP.


Because increases in real GDP = increased revenues = increased profits = increased tax base and venture capital supply = economic growth.


But what's the point? Even if the economy grows, if the population grows faster everybody individually is worse off.


No, it's what happens in any centrally planned economy on a large scale.

China is only one example. India has the fourth highest GDP, and it also does not have a stellar standard of living.


Even if that's true, that tends to undermine the claim that recent immigrants - a small proportion of the population - are less entrepreneurial.

Absolutely true, and I concede that point.


Concentration of wealth also leads to a higher quality of life: that money is ultimately saved and becomes new venture capital so more people can fund their business plans.

That means a higher GDP plus more and better jobs.

Hmm. I'm not sure. Is concentration of wealth correlated with economic growth? I've never seen any data on this, but it would make a great paper for an economics journal.


If they:

1. Increase GDP, and

2. Keep the economy from collapsing.

They've improved the standard of living.


I don't think the economy is on the verge of collapsing unless immigrants are allowed into the US. That's ridiculous.


Although I'm not sure if those programs are available to recent non-citizen immigrants, it still doesn't make them any less entrepreneurial.

I wasn't trying to say that immigrants are less entrepreneurial because of affirmative action. I was trying to say that affirmative action makes it difficult to *measure* entrepreneurship. If immigrants own more businesses than native-born Americans, that may not be due to more entrepreneurship among immigrants, but rather due to the affirmative action programs that most immigrants qualify for but most non-immigrants don't.

[Dan Dare]

No, because it's impossible to achieve economic growth under those conditions. And an economy has to grow to avoid stationing.

Stationing? wot dat?

You're not still trotting out that old chestnut about the stationary state again, are you?

The one based upon David Ricardo's model economy which takes account only of three commodities: land, labour and corn.

We've all moved on a bit since then.

Except amongst the charlatans of the Immigration Industyry, there is no present-day constituency for the notion that an economy has to continue to 'grow' in order not to fail.

[Basil Fawlty]

No, because it's impossible to achieve economic growth under those conditions.Why would a self-sufficient economy need to grow? This is capitalism you are talking about.
And an economy has to grow to avoid stationing.More or less static economies (relative to the capitalist era) were the norm for most of human history. Implicit in your view here is that somehow economics is the highest principle of social existence.

[Kamandi]

Stationing? wot dat?

You're not still trotting out that old chestnut about the stationary state again, are you?

The one based upon David Ricardo's model economy which takes account only of three commodities: land, labour and corn.

We've all moved on a bit since then.

Except amongst the charlatans of the Immigration Industyry, there is no present-day constituency for the notion that an economy has to continue to 'grow' in order not to fail.
That's false: the phenomena of falling average profits and the stationary state are accepted by economists, period. It's a basic fact just as self-evident as universal gravitation. If the economy doesn't grow, it eventually collapses, which is why depressions ultimately follow recessions, if they last long enough.

The question is, can we avoid the stationary state indefinitely through technological progress, as Ricardo and Mill believed, as or is the collapse of the capitalist model inevitable, as Schumpeter and the economists who've followed him do.

[Kamandi]

Why would a self-sufficient economy need to grow? This is capitalism you are talking about.
Because profit levels fall across industries until it's eventually impossible to make a profit at all without growth. Capitalism is predicated on the profit motive.


More or less static economies (relative to the capitalist era) were the norm for most of human history.
That was then and this is now. We didn't have our current population size or the standard of living or the average longevity we do today then either.

Implicit in your view here is that somehow economics is the highest principle of social existence.
That's 'cuz it is. It's the foundation of all social existence. This is a material world

[harjit]

That's 'cuz it is. It's the foundation of all social existence. This is a material world
Christ, that's a depressing thought.

It's necessary, to be sure, but to call it the foundation?

[Kamandi]

If they have a slower ramp-up then by definition they're less productive overall. Their yearly productivity may converge on that of native-born Americans eventually, but overall they have a lower productivity.
Not necessarily - many of the industries in which they work don't run without native-born workers, as in the case of the migrants.

Interesting. What do you mean?
It's produced and consumed by the state, like much military stuff that isn't contracted out to the lowest bidder.

It is true that wealth is not distributed evenly in a capitalist nation. But this has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand.
I don't see why not - as the rich get richer, the poor do get poorer. But most people aren't rich or poor in our society.

Real GDP per capita is a better predictor of standard of living than real GDP.
No, there's no evidence of that at all.

But what's the point? Even if the economy grows, if the population grows faster everybody individually is worse off.
As long as economic growth occurs and full employment is maintained, everyone is better off regardless of the population size. Wages rise, the number of jobs increases, and the standard of living grows.

China is only one example. India has the fourth highest GDP, and it also does not have a stellar standard of living.
Of course not - most of India is preindustrial. Indian poverty is a relic of colonial exploitation and consequently, much of the subcontinent has yet to be industrialized.

You can't compare economies that have only recently begun to grow out of a mass agrarian mode of production with an advanced, mature, post-industrial modern economic power.

Hmm. I'm not sure. Is concentration of wealth correlated with economic growth? I've never seen any data on this, but it would make a great paper for an economics journal.
See, the problem is that capitalism ALWAYS causes more and more wealth to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It's simply part of the logic of the capitalist mode of production.

The other problem is that collectivism either doesn't work at all or produces a low standard of living overall.

Since capitalism produces the most economic growth AND causes a greater and greater proportion of the wealth to flow in a smaller and smaller and smaller proportion of the genpop at the same time, it stands to reason that the two are correlated.

I don't think the economy is on the verge of collapsing unless immigrants are allowed into the US. That's ridiculous.
Nope, if a giant impenetrable wall of iron were built around the nation tomorrow and immigration was reduced to zero, the economy would collapse faster than a house of cards in a tornado.

I wasn't trying to say that immigrants are less entrepreneurial because of affirmative action. I was trying to say that affirmative action makes it difficult to *measure* entrepreneurship. If immigrants own more businesses than native-born Americans, that may not be due to more entrepreneurship among immigrants, but rather due to the affirmative action programs that most immigrants qualify for but most non-immigrants don't.
As I see it, affirmative action doesn't create entrepreneurship; it only permits it to be actualized.

It's highly likely that persons not eligible for AA are also much more likely to have investment contacts to fund their business plans or to get an SBLI loan than persons eligible for AA.

[Kamandi]

Christ, that's a depressing thought.

It's necessary, to be sure, but to call it the foundation?
Of course - a proper economy is what allows society to continue existing and economics is what impelled us to form societies in the first place.

[Errigal]

Of course - a proper economy is what allows society to continue existing and economics is what impelled us to form societies in the first place.

You really do come from a different civilization.

[Kamandi]

That's just your ignorance speaking. It's as true for you as it is anyone else.

[Errigal]

I understood this part:
That's just your ignorance speaking.

but not this:

It's as true for you as it is anyone else.

What did you mean?

[Kamandi]

Your society has as much an economic foundation as anyone else's. Your ancestors formed societies for economic reasons too.

[Errigal]

Your society has as much an economic foundation as anyone else's. Your ancestors formed societies for economic reasons too.

People formed societies because they are humans. The communities existed before there was any trade or commerce. Societies don't exist in order to engage in economic activity, people engage in commerce in order to help their societies prosper.

[Kamandi]

Au contraire: people formed societies because the hunter/gatherer mode of production just wasn't doing it for them and they wanted a better and easier life-style with more food and less death by starvation or exposure during the winter.

Economics doesn't just encompass trade and commerce; all modes of production, including the preindustrial agrarian mode historically prior to the era of commerce, are economic models.

[Errigal]

Au contraire: people formed societies because the hunter/gatherer mode of production just wasn't doing it for them and they wanted a better and easier life-style with more food and less death by starvation or exposure during the winter.

Economics doesn't just encompass trade and commerce; all modes of production, including the preindustrial agrarian mode historically prior to the era of commerce, are economic models.

Modern man existed in society for millennia before before an economic model was retroactively applied to such tribes, clans and villiages. Human society doesn't exist to engage in commerce, let alone engage in capitalist commerce.

A person doesn't just live in order to eat but eats in order to live. The same is true of human society and commerce.

[Kamandi]

All those tribes, clans and villages had an economic model. They didn't call it that, but it was still there.

For example, at some point, the hunter/gatherer mode of production was usurped by a division of labor (blacksmith, shoemaker, butcher, etc.) and settled agriculture. That was done to increase the efficiency of production. (Again, they didn't call it that either.)

All of the above is 'economic activity.'

[Errigal]

All those tribes, clans and villages had an economic model. They didn't call it that, but it was still there.

For example, at some point, the hunter/gatherer mode of production was usurped by a division of labor (blacksmith, shoemaker, butcher, etc.) and settled agriculture. That was done to increase the efficiency of production. (Again, they didn't call it that either.)

All of the above is 'economic activity.'

Again, in retrospect. We did not form societies in order to engage in commerce or act out economic laws, we engaged in trade and commerce after we had formed societies and we developed economic theories much later.

Implicit in your view here is that somehow economics is the highest principle of social existence.
That's 'cuz it is. It's the foundation of all social existence. This is a material world

We don't live to engage in commerce, we engage in commerce to live.

[Kamandi]

The flawed assumption you're making is that only commerce is 'economic.' Any kind of production is an 'economic arrangement.' Humans had an economic arrangement before commerce and before agriculture; it was called hunter/gathering.

Society came into being with the river/valley civilizations because humans made the transition to a new economic arrangement in order that their lives would be easier and better. That was still before the beginnings of commerce or the existence of currency.

[Errigal]

The flawed assumption you're making is that only commerce is 'economic.' Any kind of production is an 'economic arrangement.' Humans had an economic arrangement before commerce and before agriculture; it was called hunter/gathering.

Society came into being with the river/valley civilizations because humans made the transition to a new economic arrangement in order that their lives would be easier and better. That was still before the beginnings of commerce or the existence of currency.

We're talking past each other. Like I said, you come from a different civilization from me.

[Hakluyt]

Whether or not the archeology of 'society' can be described as 'economic' does not pertain to whether economics is the highest social good. (There is some specific fallacy to describe this that I can't remember the name of). What we do with our society, however it came about, is a decision made in light of other non-economic factors.

[Kamandi]

Didn't mean to suggest that economics is necessarily the highest social good, but it is the foundation.

We entered into civilization for economic reasons and economics defines society's structure. It's not entirely clear that non-economic factors determine what we do as a society, but they certainly may determine what we should do.

[Geist]

All those tribes, clans and villages had an economic model. They didn't call it that, but it was still there.

For example, at some point, the hunter/gatherer mode of production was usurped by a division of labor (blacksmith, shoemaker, butcher, etc.) and settled agriculture. That was done to increase the efficiency of production. (Again, they didn't call it that either.)

All of the above is 'economic activity.'

Talk about reading something into history retroactively. You can be assured that were they engaged in economics or efficiency of production they would have some word for it or a trace that could be derived etymologically.

[Kamandi]

No, such terms didn't come into being until Adam Smith wrote about them.

People just learned through trial and error what worked most effectively without any real abstract analysis and the economy evolved that way. As the population grew, it became impossible to feed everyone through hunting and gathering, so agriculture was invented, as well as specialization, etc.

Civilization a la the Indus Valley was just the most convenient and effective way to organize agrarian production, so it evolved too.

[Errigal]

Whether or not the archeology of 'society' can be described as 'economic' does not pertain to whether economics is the highest social good. (There is some specific fallacy to describe this that I can't remember the name of). What we do with our society, however it came about, is a decision made in light of other non-economic factors.

Is it my imagination, or are you actually agreeing with me?

Miracles can happen!

[Basil Fawlty]

Because profit levels fall across industries until it's eventually impossible to make a profit at all without growth. Capitalism is predicated on the profit motive.This is question-begging, I am questioning behind capitalism.
That was then and this is now. We didn't have our current population size or the standard of living or the average longevity we do today then either.This is also question-begging as these developments are bound up with the development of capitalism.
That's 'cuz it is. It's the foundation of all social existence. This is a material worldThat's a matter of opinion. In effect you are saying that the purpose of human existence is to engage in economic activity. Apart from the fact that you are the person who denied that man has a purpose, you are confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition. I earn a wage in order to live, I do not live in order to earn a wage.

[Kamandi]

This is question-begging, I am questioning behind capitalism.
Only referring to capitalist societies. Collectivist economies have other problems.


That's a matter of opinion. In effect you are saying that the purpose of human existence is to engage in economic activity. Apart from the fact that you are the person who denied that man has a purpose, you are confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition. I earn a wage in order to live, I do not live in order to earn a wage.
No, I'm saying that the foundation of human SOCIETY is economic. The purpose(s) of human individuals is a different matter altogether.

[Errigal]

...

No, I'm saying that the foundation of human SOCIETY is economic. The purpose of human individuals is a different matter altogether.

No, the foundation of human society is human nature. Man is a social creature. Economics is just one of Man's many inventions after he formed social groups.

[Kamandi]

No one invented economics. Laws of economics pre-exist man just like the laws of physics do. Human nature is shaped by them, primarily, and vice versa.

Wherever there are human beings, for example, scarcity and the laws of supply and demand operate. Man is an economic animal.

[Errigal]

No one invented economics. Laws of economics pre-exist man just like the laws of physics do. Human nature is shaped by them, primarily, and vice versa.

Wherever there are human beings, for example, scarcity and the laws of supply and demand operate. Man is an economic animal.

What about bees and chimpanzees, do they live as economic animals?

[Kamandi]

Economics affects them too. Food and resources are scarce. They just don't have our capacity to invent, build, systematize or organize.

[harjit]

No, I'm saying that the foundation of human SOCIETY is economic. The purpose(s) of human individuals is a different matter altogether.
I'm satisfied that you aren't asserting that peoples' primary purpose to be economic activity.

As for obsessive haters like Errigal (of Jews) and Basil (of capitalism/modernism) I fear they will have trouble accepting that. I bet they want you to believe that peoples' primary purpose is economic... NEED you to believe it.

[President Barbicane]

It's produced and consumed by the state, like much military stuff that isn't contracted out to the lowest bidder.

Very interesting. How on earth do they calculate the value of something like that?


No, there's no evidence of that at all.

Check out here: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us

GDP per capita is a typical way to measure standard of living. To be honest, I really don't understand why you can't see this. Maybe you could explain what it is you don't understand?


As long as economic growth occurs and full employment is maintained, everyone is better off regardless of the population size. Wages rise, the number of jobs increases, and the standard of living grows.

Yeah, I understand this. If the economy grows there are more jobs, there are more products and services for people to buy, and everyone is better off. But, If the economy grows slowly, let's say 3% a year, and the population grows more quickly, like 4% a year, everybody will be worse off. Although in a year there are 3% more jobs than the year before, there are 4% more people, so the unemployment rate rises. Products and services have to be spread out to more people, so each individual has less. This is the point I was trying to make.


Of course not - most of India is preindustrial. Indian poverty is a relic of colonial exploitation and consequently, much of the subcontinent has yet to be industrialized.

You can't compare economies that have only recently begun to grow out of a mass agrarian mode of production with an advanced, mature, post-industrial modern economic power.

You agree that India is poor, right? If GDP were a better measure of standard of living than GDP per capita, then India would not be poor. India has the fourth highest GDP in the world, higher than all the countries of Europe. Does that mean that Europe is poor but India is rich? Of course not! Even though India has a higher GDP than Great Britain, India has around 20 times as many people. The difference in population sizes must be accounted for, which is why GDP per capita is used as an indicator of standard of living, not GDP.


See, the problem is that capitalism ALWAYS causes more and more wealth to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It's simply part of the logic of the capitalist mode of production.

The other problem is that collectivism either doesn't work at all or produces a low standard of living overall.

Since capitalism produces the most economic growth AND causes a greater and greater proportion of the wealth to flow in a smaller and smaller and smaller proportion of the genpop at the same time, it stands to reason that the two are correlated.

Your reasoning is impeccable. But people use impeccable reasoning to reach wrong conclusions all the time. This is why I would like to know if it has actually been observed to be correlated. This is generally called 'empiricism', whereas using reasoning alone to determine things is called 'rationalism'. I am much more of an empiricist than a rationalist.


Nope, if a giant impenetrable wall of iron were built around the nation tomorrow and immigration was reduced to zero, the economy would collapse faster than a house of cards in a tornado.

I'll believe that when I see it.


As I see it, affirmative action doesn't create entrepreneurship; it only permits it to be actualized.


I agree, affirmative action does allow entrepreneurship to be actualized by minorities (and not whites, but then who cares about them).


It's highly likely that persons not eligible for AA are also much more likely to have investment contacts to fund their business plans or to get an SBLI loan than persons eligible for AA.

Yeah, that's the standard rationale for affirmative action in small business loans. It may be true, I don't know.

[Basil Fawlty]

Only referring to capitalist societies.But you seem to be making universal statements on the basis of what is only true for capitalism.
No, I'm saying that the foundation of human SOCIETY is economic. The purpose(s) of human individuals is a different matter altogether.I'm glad to see you have moderated your position, there's hope for you yet.
Earlier I said that "Implicit in your view here is that somehow economics is the highest principle of social existence."
Which you then affirmed.
"That's 'cuz it is. It's the foundation of all social existence. This is a material world"

That something is a necessary condition ("foundation") does not make it a sufficient condition ("highest principle of social existence"). Sadly the situation of late capitalism is that everything must be subordinate to economic exigencies. Capitalism does exist as if economics was the purpose of human existence.

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm satisfied that you aren't asserting that peoples' primary purpose to be economic activity.<Man Friday rushes forward to fan a cooling towel in the face of his champion>
As for obsessive haters like Errigal (of Jews) and Basil (of capitalism/modernism) I fear they will have trouble accepting that. You really are a silly old woman.
I bet they want you to believe that peoples' primary purpose is economic... NEED you to believe it.Perhaps you have access to other people's intentional states but I don't possess that gift so I can only go on the words I see on the screen.

[Geist]

As for obsessive haters like Errigal (of Jews) and Basil (of capitalism/modernism) I fear they will have trouble accepting that. I bet they want you to believe that peoples' primary purpose is economic... NEED you to believe it.

So questioning the status quo equates with being obsessive? Maybe anti-semitism is obsessive, but opposing capitalism? Or modernism (which by the way passed along quite a while ago)? These are perfectly valid positions for anybody to take and should you disagree you should perhaps put forward an argument rather than do the MSF high five with Kamandi.

[Baron_Corvo]

Economics affects them too. Food and resources are scarce. They just don't have our capacity to invent, build, systematize or organize.

Apart from ants; their capacities to form working societies are very impressive (I had an uncle who kept an ant colony in a tank as a hobby).

[harjit]

So questioning the status quo equates with being obsessive? Maybe anti-semitism is obsessive, but opposing capitalism? Or modernism (which by the way passed along quite a while ago)? These are perfectly valid positions for anybody to take and should you disagree you should perhaps put forward an argument rather than do the MSF high five with Kamandi.
Hehe, looking at that post again I just realized it doesn't get any more quintessentially MSF-esque than that.

It contains: Emotionalism, psychoanalysis of opponents (although I had started closer to their side than Kam's), an accusation of hate, and last but not least the requisite high-five.

I actually miss those days when all our posts were like that. Simpler times. ;)

[Geist]

It contains: Emotionalism, psychoanalysis of opponents (although I had started closer to their side than Kam's), an accusation of hate, and last but not least the requisite high-five.



Its worse than that; this is how modern academia 'thinks'. I'm just waiting for the time machine. Somebody take me back to at least the year before Freud was born.

[harjit]

Its worse than that; this is how modern academia 'thinks'.
But surely not the high five part?

[Kamandi]

But you seem to be making universal statements on the basis of what is only true for capitalism.
We were discussing the American economy and immigration's impact on it specifically. Hence, it should be understood that my comments were intended to apply to us.


I'm glad to see you have moderated your position, there's hope for you yet.
You simply misunderstood my position.

Earlier I said that "Implicit in your view here is that somehow economics is the highest principle of social existence."
Which you then affirmed.
"That's 'cuz it is. It's the foundation of all social existence. This is a material world"
That hinges on what 'the highest principle of social existence' means.' I submit to you, sir, that it could be interpreted in more than one fashion.

If by 'highest principle of social existence,' you mean 'the most fundamental principle that explains social organization, the collective behavior of societies, and permits societies to exist,' then economics rules the day.

If by 'highest principle of social existence,' you mean 'the greatest moral good to which society could aspire,' that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Kamandi]

Very interesting. How on earth do they calculate the value of something like that?
It's a mystery.

Check out here: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us

GDP per capita is a typical way to measure standard of living. To be honest, I really don't understand why you can't see this. Maybe you could explain what it is you don't understand?
Answer: notice that he never states that GDP per capita is a better measure of standard of living than real GDP. He said that it's the one most prevalently used for practical purposes.

Next, note well the following:

Moreover technological change, relative prices and tastes affect the course of GDP and the products and services that it includes, which creates what economists call an “index number” problem that is not readily solvable.

Because an increasing labor pool is indispensable to technological progress, which is itself indispensable to maintaining the economy, it's clear that GDP per capita is an inadequate tool with which to discuss the theoretical impact of immigration on production.

Yeah, I understand this. If the economy grows there are more jobs, there are more products and services for people to buy, and everyone is better off. But, If the economy grows slowly, let's say 3% a year, and the population grows more quickly, like 4% a year, everybody will be worse off. Although in a year there are 3% more jobs than the year before, there are 4% more people, so the unemployment rate rises. Products and services have to be spread out to more people, so each individual has less. This is the point I was trying to make.
I said as long as we maintain full employment, everyone is better off. As long as we maintain full employment, the ratio between the growth in the population and the rate of economic growth will be proportionate.

If there were, for some reason, a huge increase in unemployment, that would be different. According to the Sayle's Law, in a mature industrialized economy like ours, unemployment always tends towards zero.

You agree that India is poor, right? If GDP were a better measure of standard of living than GDP per capita, then India would not be poor. India has the fourth highest GDP in the world, higher than all the countries of Europe. Does that mean that Europe is poor but India is rich? Of course not! Even though India has a higher GDP than Great Britain, India has around 20 times as many people. The difference in population sizes must be accounted for, which is why GDP per capita is used as an indicator of standard of living, not GDP.
That's irrelevant - what's true for India is not true for a mature post-industrial fully industrialized economy with full employment like the US economy.

Your reasoning is impeccable. But people use impeccable reasoning to reach wrong conclusions all the time. This is why I would like to know if it has actually been observed to be correlated. This is generally called 'empiricism', whereas using reasoning alone to determine things is called 'rationalism'. I am much more of an empiricist than a rationalist.
Of course the two have been historically correlated.

I'll believe that when I see it.
You're not going to see it - no one is going to touch the flow of immigration we need as long as we have full employment.

Both the stock market and real estate market are dependent on an increasing population. No one is going to fuck with that.

I agree, affirmative action does allow entrepreneurship to be actualized by minorities (and not whites, but then who cares about them).
All the investors and stock-holders that prioritize white-owned corporations like the overwhelming majority of the Dow Jones.

Yeah, that's the standard rationale for affirmative action in small business loans. It may be true, I don't know.
I suspect it is, at least for the time present.

[Kamandi]

I'm satisfied that you aren't asserting that peoples' primary purpose to be economic activity.
The primary purpose of human beings is known only to God.

[Kamandi]

Apart from ants; their capacities to form working societies are very impressive (I had an uncle who kept an ant colony in a tank as a hobby).
Ants can only adapt to their environments; humans alone have the ability to truly adapt their environments to them.

[President Barbicane]

If there were, for some reason, a huge increase in employment, that would be different. According to the Sayle's Law, in a mature industrialized economy like ours, unemployment always tends towards zero.


I have never heard of Sayle's Law, and google reveals nothing. Provide some kind of a source for your assertion, please.


That's irrelevant - what's true for India is not true for a mature post-industrial fully industrialized economy with full employment like the US economy.

You can say that, but you can't provide a rational reason for it.


Of course the two have been historically correlated.

Possibly, but I've never seen any good evidence of this.


All the investors and stock-holders that prioritize white-owned corporations like the overwhelming majority of the Dow Jones.


Yeah, right. They prioritize the Dow Jones because they're white owned, not because they make money.

Anyway, Kamandi: You seem to think the US labor market is much tighter than it is. My sister was telling me earlier that at the store where she works whenever they advertise a position opening they get hundreds of applications. If the labor market in the US were so tight that we need immigrants to fill jobs this wouldn't happen.

[Warka]

I have never heard of Sayle's Law, and google reveals nothing. Provide some kind of a source for your assertion, please.

There's this but it's probably Kamandi under a different name (note the poster's location): http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1648685&postcount=10

[Geist]

But surely not the high five part?

Especially the lame high-fiving part. 'Hey your tolerant too!' Ghetto-high five!

[Kamandi]

I have never heard of Sayle's Law, and google reveals nothing. Provide some kind of a source for your assertion, please.
A little slip of the keyboard there: it's Say's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law

Sayle's was the guy who directed Return of the Secaucus Seven.

You can say that, but you can't provide a rational reason for it.
Well, let's see: much of India is unemployed, agrarian, unindustrialized, lacking in modern infrastructure and economically depressed due to colonialization.

It's high GDP accrues on account of outsourcing by industrialized powers exploiting their sweatshop laborers low wage requirements and not uniform economic development. So despite their high output, large swathes of India has yet to experience any benefits from it.

That's hardly true in the US, the most industrialized nation in the world.

Possibly, but I've never seen any good evidence of this.
See Friedmann's The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

Yeah, right. They prioritize the Dow Jones because they're white owned, not because they make money.
So you're willing to state on the record that investors are just as likely to invest in black-owned businesses than white-owned businesses?

Anyway, Kamandi: You seem to think the US labor market is much tighter than it is. My sister was telling me earlier that at the store where she works whenever they advertise a position opening they get hundreds of applications. If the labor market in the US were so tight that we need immigrants to fill jobs this wouldn't happen.
So what? We still have frictional unemployment and underemployment like everyone else. Note that those same applicants don't flock to migrant farmworker positions

[Kamandi]

There's this but it's probably Kamandi under a different name (note the poster's location): http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1648685&postcount=10
Not me - I only have time to post here and at MSF.

[President Barbicane]

There's this but it's probably Kamandi under a different name

Yeah, I noticed that, but it doesn't really explain anything. The guy just asserts that sayle's law means that unemployment tends to zero in an industrial economy.

[Warka]

Not me - I only have time to post here and at MSF.

Right, it's just coincidence that the only two mentions of a mythical Sayle's Law on the entire Internet come from two different people in NYC sharing the same basic opinions on economics. :rofl:

[Kamandi]

The interpretation of it as demanding that unemployment tends to zero is due to Keynes.

[Kamandi]

Right, it's just coincidence that the only two mentions of a mythical Sayle's Law on the entire Internet come from two different people in NYC sharing the same basic opinions on economics. :rofl:
A lot of Keynesians feel the same way, so yeah.

[President Barbicane]

Well, let's see: much of India is unemployed, agrarian, unindustrialized, lacking in modern infrastructure and economically depressed due to colonialization.

It's high GDP is due to outsourcing by industrialized powers exploiting their sweatshop laborers low wage requirements and not uniform economic development. So despite their high output, large swathes of India has yet to experience any benefits from it.

That's hardly true in the US, the most industrialized nation in the world.

All of this is true, but it's all completely irrelevant.

So what? We still have frictional unemployment and underemployment like everyone else. Note that those same applicants don't flock to migrant farmworker positions

Hundreds of applications for one position can't be explained by frictional unemployment. This is something different. It may be explained by underemployment, but I don't think there would be so many people so underemployed that a job in a bookstore would be a step up. The most parsimonious explanation for this many applicants for a single position would be that the labor market isn't so tight.

Anyway, your Say's law thing seems to come from Keynes. I'm going to read some more about Keynes and respond when I get some time. I might start a new thread about it in the economics forum.

[Kamandi]

Hundreds of applications for a single big-box store position can certainly be explained by frictional unemployment and underemployment.

In the areas of the country it's happened, many jobs tend to be seasonal, and many of the people applying were probably teens and college students and housewives. Moreover, the franchises probably pay more and have better benefits than the local employers.

[Warka]

Not me - I only have time to post here and at MSF.

Shoutbox archives:

05-19-2008 10:49 PM 1-800 Kamandi needs to stop 'sperging out all over the map on the gentrification thread.

05-19-2008 10:54 PM 1-800 He posts at another message board i rea.d

05-19-2008 10:54 PM 1-800 He got banned like 15 times and keeps re-registering

05-19-2008 10:54 PM Azimuth which forum, 800?

05-19-2008 10:55 PM 1-800 discussanything, currently posting as CycloneRanger aka CowPunk aka OLMEC aka BrotherEye aka DinosaurLad aka some stupid name

Pwned.

[Kamandi]

I registered under my own name and the comics related-ones, but I wasn't CowPunk or the others. I haven't posted on DiscussAnything in years.

[President Barbicane]

Hundreds of applications for a single big-box store position can certainly be explained by frictional unemployment and underemployment.

In the areas of the country it's happened, many jobs tend to be seasonal, and many of the people applying were probably teens and college students and housewives. Moreover, the franchises probably pay more and have better benefits than the local employers.

It's not a big-box store, it's a bookstore. I live in a college town, so most of the applications probably were from college students, yeah.

I just don't know. The labor market doesn't seem very tight to me. Private sector job growth is really slow.

[Kamandi]

I rest my case. Big box stores have also recounted similar stories. Most of the people who replied were probably not unemployed prior to positions being made available.

[President Barbicane]

Maybe, but that just really begs the question. Why are so many people underemployed?

[Kamandi]

Because although adding to the labor force expands the economy overall, it doesn't do so equally in all quarters and there's not much you can do about that.