I have been thinking, is it really the fault of the "illegal" immigrants, or the politicians who have defacto actually given permission for them to come here by not enforcing the laws? Perhaps the "illegal" immigrants actually thought it was okey to come here because the politicians were implicitly giving them permission to do so, as if to say the immigration laws in the books were obsolete and not enforced, kind of like how there are many laws from 150 years ago that are no longer enforced but are still in the books, for example, it is illegal to kiss your wife's breasts in florida, a law from long ago, but it is obviously not enforced today though it is still officially in the books. So, let's say illegals come here, build a life, get married and have kids, are well integrated. Should they years later be deported if let's say a new president is elected who will then decide to actually enforce the immigration laws, even though they have not been enforced for the last 15 years?

Judith

I am in support of closing the borders from now on, even legal immigration, I think 300 million people is enough for this country. But, I am still undecided about illegals that have been here for years because politicians have implicitly given them permission to break the law by defacto allowing them to stay by not enforcing the law.

Here is one opinion supporting deportation of illegals:

Real Message of The Bush Amnesty

by Pat Buchanan

If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.

Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.

Complete text at http://www.amconmag.com/2_2_04/buchanan.html

Yes, since they are here illegally.

I am in support of closing the borders from now on, even legal immigration

I suppose you would have the right to say that only if you're Native American - are you? Or were your family at one time immigrants to the US? Are you sure they immigrated legally?

The US population will start to age rather more quickly if immigration stops, leading to the other terror of Americans... OLD PEOPLE!

Illegal Immigrants

Old People

Chooooooosssssseeeee....

I think 300 million people is enough for this country.
Then thank your lucky stars you don't live in the UK which has a pop. of 60 million. You can fit the UK into the USA countless times yet we have one fifth the amount of your population. Now thats what I call overcrowding. It is time WE stopped immigration full stop.

I am in support of closing the borders from now on, even legal immigration

I suppose you would have the right to say that only if you're Native American - are you? Or were your family at one time immigrants to the US? Are you sure they immigrated legally?

That argument never convinces me when people bring it up. I believe that even though my grandparents were immigrants, it is morally accepatable for me to vote for a politician who will close the borders.

Every country in the world first started off as people moving into the area from other areas, but I don't believe that means they don't have the right to ever close their borders some time down the line.

Regarding the aging population: as I see it, if you can't work, then don't live. Pull your plug, re-incorporate voluntary euthanization, or just don't retire. Why are people retiring at 60 when they are physically capable of continuing their jobs even till age 80? Modern medicine keeps people healthier much longer than in the past, so people should have to work longer. I don't believe I should open the borders because people above 60 are too lazy. I personally plan to work until my last breath, as long as I am physically capable of doing so.

Of course, the above could be avoided: all the money we spend on unneeded wars, and all the money we give to other countries, can be used instead to perhaps help old people IF they are physically not able to do any jobs at all.

Judith

I do not support Illegal immigration, and of course they should be sent back to their country of origin. They could come into the United States legally like millions of other immigrants have over the last 100+ years. But the US now is a state of "low cost" consumers. If you were to totally stop that illegal immigration in the Southern US there will be a massive issue on how to resolve the increase in living costs. Mexican workers work for almost nothing in comparison to American workers, and there are simply some jobs American will not do. I was watching CNN's Lou Dobbs and they were showing a series of "made in America", and "working in America" both of them showed American workers working in threatened industries. One of these industries is a gardener. A man who lived in the SW US was a man who polished gardens the ppl who used his services noted that he came on time, he spoke English and he was courteous, but he charged more then his Mexican counterparts and most Americans want more for less. America sadly it seems needs there illegals to have a cheap labour force, to keep prices down. An argument could be made for those 35 million Americans, who live in poverty, but they would still be bound by US regulations and laws, the illegals aren't so companies make a killing.

I think all borders should be opened completely. This would effectively make the practice of shipping jobs overseas for cheaper labor impossible. For example, if the US were to open its border with mexico, Mexico would have to make its labor laws comparable to those of the US in order to avoid having all its citizens leave, and the US would be less inclined to pressure(or allow corporations to pressure) countries into maintaining poor working conditions if it meant that everyone in those countries would simply come to the US. This would ultimately remove the motivation that many immigrants have for coming to the US, and ultimately likely lower the total number of immigrants.

Mexico would have to make its labor laws comparable to those of the US in order to avoid having all its citizens leave, and the US would be less inclined to pressure(or allow corporations to pressure) countries into maintaining poor working conditions if it meant that everyone in those countries would simply come to the US.

You are suggesting that NAFTA become one state? If not then this makes no sense. If labour laws in Mexico are more lax, more American companies and jobs will flood into Mexico, and that would encourage Mexicans to stay in Mexico. Sure it is not a good thing for the Mexicans, rather it is morally reprehensible to keep their working standards so low, but if Mexico were to raise her standards, she will lose that competitive nature, and sink into a deep depression economically making the US more attractive not less. You know as well as I do capitalism depends on exploitation, and one cannot exploit with tough regulations.

You are suggesting that NAFTA become one state? If not then this makes no sense. If labour laws in Mexico are more lax, more American companies and jobs will flood into Mexico, and that would encourage Mexicans to stay in Mexico. Sure it is not a good thing for the Mexicans, rather it is morally reprehensible to keep their working standards so low, but if Mexico were to raise her standards, she will lose that competitive nature, and sink into a deep depression economically making the US more attractive not less. You know as well as I do capitalism depends on exploitation, and one cannot exploit with tough regulations.
Why would a bunch of jobs that don't pay a livable wage encourage someone to stay in mexico if they have nothing holding them back from moving to the US where they have a chance of getting a job that does pay a livable wage?

If there were no place which didn't have reasonable labor laws, then having them would not remove a countries competitive nature.

Why would a bunch of jobs that don't pay a livable wage encourage someone to stay in mexico if they have nothing holding them back from moving to the US where they have a chance of getting a job that does pay a livable wage?


Well then let me put it like this, if Mexico raised her labour laws significantly upwards, China will get even more jobs from Mexico (which she is already taking). Mexican wages will eventually go up, they have to due to the re-organization of wealth due to globalization. But I don't think that 20 million Mexicans are going to find jobs in the US, and surely the US will not allow that. The best thing is to stop illegal immigration, allow investment to flow into Mexico then increasing wages with international inflation rates (due to globalization). In the US they make a livable wage? From what I know they have no benefits, and they make less then a American who would do the same job. I wouldn't call that livable.

If there were no place which didn't have reasonable labor laws, then having them would not remove a countries competitive nature.

Of course it does a nation now with restrictive labour laws like Germany and France are not competitive with states like the US even, and forget about China. The thing is this, re-orient wealth. In globalization the idea is to get the rich richer, and to get the 3rd world into markets, that could mean paying the individual shit, but in a large group they could surpass the purchasing power of the US, and to further make into a market gradually increase wages, and decrease them in the West.

It makes more sense to look at the ageing population thing as a red herring. unless your newly arrived OAP care workers are immortal, they will get old as well, and need care, and moreover will have. thus it will not get much better.

Well then let me put it like this, if Mexico raised her labour laws significantly upwards, China will get even more jobs from Mexico (which she is already taking). Mexican wages will eventually go up, they have to due to the re-organization of wealth due to globalization. But I don't think that 20 million Mexicans are going to find jobs in the US, and surely the US will not allow that. The best thing is to stop illegal immigration, allow investment to flow into Mexico then increasing wages with international inflation rates (due to globalization). In the US they make a livable wage? From what I know they have no benefits, and they make less then a American who would do the same job. I wouldn't call that livable. .
I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant by opening the borders. I don't mean that the US should look the other way for illegal immigrants so that wal-mart can employ them for slave wages, I meant make all immigrants legal immigrants, and citizens. Not enough jobs for the 20 million new citizens? I guess they'd have to be supported by welfare then. Not enough money for that? then probably something would need to be done to remove the incentive for them to leave Mexico.


If there were no place which didn't have reasonable labor laws, then having them would not remove a countries competitive nature.

Of course it does a nation now with restrictive labour laws like Germany and France are not competitive with states like the US even, and forget about China. The thing is this, re-orient wealth. In globalization the idea is to get the rich richer, and to get the 3rd world into markets, that could mean paying the individual shit, but in a large group they could surpass the purchasing power of the US, and to further make into a market gradually increase wages, and decrease them in the West.
If ALL states had good labor laws(which they would have to if they all had open borders) then there would be no incentive to leave any one of them for another, allowing for an equitable distribution of jobs.
"free trade" globalization may be getting the third world into the global market, but its also keeping its wages down. Third world countries are encouraged to have oppressive labor practices. In many cases they'd be better off without entering the global market. For example rather than growing a variety of crops for subsistence they are now growing one crop for exportation and ending up not having enough money to buy the food they previously were growing for themselves.

I don't mean that the US should look the other way for illegal immigrants so that wal-mart can employ them for slave wages, I meant make all immigrants legal immigrants, and citizens. Not enough jobs for the 20 million new citizens? I guess they'd have to be supported by welfare then. Not enough money for that? then probably something would need to be done to remove the incentive for them to leave Mexico.

So you accept Mexico and the US being two independent states, yet essentially making all Mexicans US citizens? It seems moronic don't you think to even have a border then. That is essentially what you are saying, that all Mexicans are then able to become immediately legal in the US, like Israel treats international Jewry. The only way u can conceivably remove the incentive is if you have jobs in Mexico proper that aren't expensive but aren't so low that ppl can't afford to live, and Mexico cannot do that alone. It needs FDI to increase it's relative wealth, and Mexican living standards are getting better.

If ALL states had good labor laws(which they would have to if they all had open borders) then there would be no incentive to leave any one of them for another, allowing for an equitable distribution of jobs.

If all states did have that then we wouldn't have a working capitalist system. I think you are a communist u said so before, I remember. But equitable labour standards in the NWO will mean decreasing labour standards, weaker unions, and lower wages. This has been happening over the last quarter century, workers have to deal with less and less all over the world. This system of economics did not work in the USSR and COMECON it surely won't work here and now. I am not a capitalist, but I do know that you cannot have equity across the board, then trade and economics could simply collapse.

"free trade" globalization may be getting the third world into the global market, but its also keeping its wages down.

This is true not only there, but in the developed world as well. Now can u show me some figures though to support this? Because if we look it adjusted for inflation then maybe in the 3rd world u are right. But btwn 1998-2002 wages have pretty much increased.

Third world countries are encouraged to have oppressive labor practices. In many cases they'd be better off without entering the global market.

Depends, that cannot be in absolutist terms that you have categorized it. Import substitution, and central government control, collectivization does more damage then market forces.

For example rather than growing a variety of crops for subsistence they are now growing one crop for exportation and ending up not having enough money to buy the food they previously were growing for themselves

That is not the fault of the Market though, they choose to do that. They could live subsistence that is the NWO I don't like it either. But that is the way it works.

So you accept Mexico and the US being two independent states, yet essentially making all Mexicans US citizens? It seems moronic don't you think to even have a border then. No, I'm saying anyone who chooses to immigrate to the US from Mexico, and give up their Mexican citizenship for American citizenship would be allowed to.



But equitable labour standards in the NWO will mean decreasing labour standards, weaker unions, and lower wages. This has been happening over the last quarter century, workers have to deal with less and less all over the world. This system of economics did not work in the USSR and COMECON it surely won't work here and now. I am not a capitalist, but I do know that you cannot have equity across the board, then trade and economics could simply collapse. Why would equitable labor standards nessarilly mean low standards? and I'm not proposing anything like the USSR.



This is true not only there, but in the developed world as well. Now can u show me some figures though to support this? Because if we look it adjusted for inflation then maybe in the 3rd world u are right. But btwn 1998-2002 wages have pretty much increased. Third world wages are increasing? By how much? do you have a link?



Depends, that cannot be in absolutist terms that you have categorized it. Import substitution, and central government control, collectivization does more damage then market forces.
how so?



That is not the fault of the Market though, they choose to do that. They could live subsistence that is the NWO I don't like it either. But that is the way it works. The choice isn't necessarilly made by the people effected by it.

No, I'm saying anyone who chooses to immigrate to the US from Mexico, and give up their Mexican citizenship for American citizenship would be allowed to.

That is not what you said before. This is still not within the context of a safe country with safe borders. You cannot reasonably expect nations to allow anyone who is wiling to give up their former citizenship to come in and automatically become American. The US would simply not be able to sustain it, and Mexico or any other country for that matter who suffer further.


Why would equitable labor standards nessarilly mean low standards?

Because higher standards are not profitable standards, the standard of workers rights have not improved and if not even got worse. We are reverting yes into an era of industrial ethos of profit over worker. States like the US who is losing droves of jobs to China for instance is indictitive of a NWO, and one must understand that if a government is poor enough they will be wiling to do anything to bring FDI. Standards are going lower, and to increase them would result in a sudden collapse of the global economy, corporations would instantly lose money, and markets would collapse.

and I'm not proposing anything like the USSR.

Sure sounded like it.


Third world wages are increasing? By how much? do you have a link?

Look at the economist:

http://www.economist.com/countries/

Here I will give u some:

India:
1999-0.56
2000-0.59
2001- 0.62
2002- 0.66

China:
1999 -.53
2000 -.59
2001 -.69
2002 -.80

Some regions like Latin America have experienced a decrease in wages, and labour costs, but that is primarily due to the economic havoc that Argentina's debt default and investor confidence eroded. But overall things are slowly increasing, eventually you will have the two worlds meet together, the West will go down and the 3rd world will go up to meet, and create a huge market.

how so?

Juche + North Korea= dead in the water economy. Juche would be popular among states who are in that precarious situation but the long term effects of non-competition and stagnate government control destroys any growth.


The choice isn't necessarilly made by the people effected by it.

True, but that is the way it is.

I have been thinking, is it really the fault of the "illegal" immigrants, or the politicians who have defacto actually given permission for them to come here by not enforcing the laws?
I think it's the people willing to hire them that are to blame, without any adverse consequences. People get stuff for cheap just because of unfair competition. If all employers were sent to federal prison for 20 years for hard-time for hiring undocumented workers, it would stop. Send all those Wal-Mart execs first, as an example.

Also, welfare should be changed back into work-fare, which was how it started during the Depression (like WPA, CCC), it was changed into an entitlement by Prez Johnson, I believe we should make people work for their money. That should add thousands to the labor force. It's time to look at all the contributing factors.

That is not what you said before. That's what I meant, I suppose I should have been more explicit.

This is still not within the context of a safe country with safe borders. You cannot reasonably expect nations to allow anyone who is wiling to give up their former citizenship to come in and automatically become American. The US would simply not be able to sustain it, and Mexico or any other country for that matter who suffer further. Of course they wouldn't. unless of course the motivation to live in the US rather than in Mexico was removed. Thats the whole point.


Because higher standards are not profitable standards, the standard of workers rights have not improved and if not even got worse. We are reverting yes into an era of industrial ethos of profit over worker. States like the US who is losing droves of jobs to China for instance is indictitive of a NWO, and one must understand that if a government is poor enough they will be wiling to do anything to bring FDI. Standards are going lower, and to increase them would result in a sudden collapse of the global economy, corporations would instantly lose money, and markets would collapse. Thats the way things are now, its not addressing what I am proposing.


and I'm not proposing anything like the USSR.

Sure sounded like it.
I don't see how.



Third world wages are increasing? By how much? do you have a link?

Look at the economist:

Some regions like Latin America have experienced a decrease in wages, and labour costs, but that is primarily due to the economic havoc that Argentina's debt default and investor confidence eroded. But overall things are slowly increasing, eventually you will have the two worlds meet together, the West will go down and the 3rd world will go up to meet, and create a huge market.
You just said above that standards or workers rights are decreasing, which would mean that even if wages are rising things are not moving towards equitable treatment of workers, and do the increases you quoted take inlfation into account?

how so?


Juche + North Korea= dead in the water economy. Juche would be popular among states who are in that precarious situation but the long term effects of non-competition and stagnate government control destroys any growth.
There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.



The choice isn't necessarilly made by the people effected by it.

True, but that is the way it is.
Yes, but if thats the way it is because the military governor who has the support of the IMF says thats how it is, then it is the fault of the market.

Deport the illegals.

Station troops at the border.

I have been thinking, is it really the fault of the "illegal" immigrants, or the politicians who have defacto actually given permission for them to come here by not enforcing the laws?

Is a burglar absolved of his guilt because the house he robbed was left unlocked?


Perhaps the "illegal" immigrants actually thought it was okey to come here because the politicians were implicitly giving them permission to do so, as if to say the immigration laws in the books were obsolete and not enforced, kind of like how there are many laws from 150 years ago that are no longer enforced but are still in the books, for example, it is illegal to kiss your wife's breasts in florida, a law from long ago, but it is obviously not enforced today though it is still officially in the books.

If ILLEGAL immigrants (no quotations necessary) thought that what they were doing was okay, they wouldn't be hiring "coyotes" to sneak them over the border and then trek for days or even weeks through some Arizona or New Mexico desert. They wouldn't be using false identification and working "under the radar" (ie: paid in cash with no social security number or other official recognition of their existence).


So, let's say illegals come here, build a life, get married and have kids, are well integrated. Should they years later be deported if let's say a new president is elected who will then decide to actually enforce the immigration laws, even though they have not been enforced for the last 15 years?

Yes. I can only wish that such a president will come along.

stop your anti-immigrant shit and learn from Maddox BITCHES

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#CLUETRAIN

Of course they wouldn't. unless of course the motivation to live in the US rather than in Mexico was removed. Thats the whole point.

Well firstly I want to know what you propose to get rid of that incentive. I would tackle the problem by increasing trade with other states other then the United States, Mexico cannot solve its problems on its own, and it has already been tried before from Argentina to the USSR it always has failed. Mexico is a trade dependant country, and Mexico is trading because she has an exploitable work force. Americans don't invest in Mexico because it looks nice; they invest in Mexico because of those lax labour laws, and low wages. Mexico is already losing jobs to China, this will eventually only create more poverty. Arguably Mexicans are making less today then in 1994, but more Mexicans are working. In order to stop the incentive of the Mexicans to go the US they need stable, a serious anti-corrupt governmental program, and set economic priorities. It is going to be painful, I am certain of that. But Mexico cannot afford not to do it.

Thats the way things are now, its not addressing what I am proposing.

It takes time to come into fruition, things don't happen all of a sudden. In constant 1990 dollars Mexico went from $6,119 per capita to $7,218 per capita in 2000, and back down to $7,089/capita in 2001 due to the American recession which hit Mexico hard. Mexican trade has exploded and the US will not let Mexico go into Argentina syndrome like she almost did in 1994. Mexico is important. Things should be getting better, should...

I don't see how.

What you propose is what the USSR had, or any socialist theory. Everyone in the world making the same amount of money (u know what I mean on average), and the same labour standards, that would mean lower productivity because competition simply doesn't exist, companies not able to make profits, and thus pushing everyone down on a equal footing. Using your logic the average person should only make $7,400 per annum with the total world economy is that really development?


You just said above that standards or workers rights are decreasing, which would mean that even if wages are rising things are not moving towards equitable treatment of workers, and do the increases you quoted take inlfation into account?

Well let me address the first part. To a 3rd world worker which is more important:
- Job that has high standards of labour, but pays less
- Job that pays more but less labour protection?

Think of this in a 3rd world context not a western centric one, which one brings food to the table? Of course it is morally reprehensible but that is again just the pathetic state of mankind today.

Then about inflation, I know that in China there was a period of deflation during that period. China has virtually no inflation so yes it was real growth. Not too sure about India...but India does have a huge and growing middle class. Something is going right obviously.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

Indeed and the precedent has been when you have a centralized economic structure you have a centralized governmental structure which would mean Stalinism, and for the 3rd world Juche (self-reliance) which is essentially what you are advocating for some states. North Korea is a disaster economically after following Juche economic models, even NK now realizes that it has to open up. It is accepting FDI believe it or not.

Yes, but if thats the way it is because the military governor who has the support of the IMF says thats how it is, then it is the fault of the market

You could argue that and I don't disagree, but being a devils advocate, it is not the market imposing on the farmer to sell anything. As Sartre says “We are condemned to be Free”

I am in support of closing the borders from now on, even legal immigration, I think 300 million people is enough for this country.

You have no right to say that. There are 1.5 billion people in China, 1 billion in India. Don't you think that should be spread out a little? I think that it's for the good of the entire world. You think too small.

Don't forget, had Hitler not driven out the Jews, they might've developed the nuclear bomb, and won WW2. What you're doing now is driving out the Jews.

Of course they wouldn't. unless of course the motivation to live in the US rather than in Mexico was removed. Thats the whole point.

Well firstly I want to know what you propose to get rid of that incentive.
See my first post


I would tackle the problem by increasing trade with other states other then the United States, Mexico cannot solve its problems on its own, and it has already been tried before from Argentina to the USSR it always has failed. Mexico is a trade dependant country, and Mexico is trading because she has an exploitable work force. Americans don't invest in Mexico because it looks nice; they invest in Mexico because of those lax labour laws, and low wages. Mexico is already losing jobs to China, this will eventually only create more poverty. Arguably Mexicans are making less today then in 1994, but more Mexicans are working. In order to stop the incentive of the Mexicans to go the US they need stable, a serious anti-corrupt governmental program, and set economic priorities. It is going to be painful, I am certain of that. But Mexico cannot afford not to do it. I won't pretend to have a good understanding of the Mexican economy, but clearly, if the reason US corporations are investing in mexico is because they have lax labor laws then it is in the US' interest to maintain those lax labor laws. opening the borders would make it against the US' interest. Not being knowledgable about the particulars I dont' know what steps would have to be taken to improve the standards and provide well-paying jobs in mexico, but whatever those steps are, I think my proposal would hasten them.


Thats the way things are now, its not addressing what I am proposing.

It takes time to come into fruition, things don't happen all of a sudden. In constant 1990 dollars Mexico went from $6,119 per capita to $7,218 per capita in 2000, and back down to $7,089/capita in 2001 due to the American recession which hit Mexico hard. Mexican trade has exploded and the US will not let Mexico go into Argentina syndrome like she almost did in 1994. Mexico is important. Things should be getting better, should... I can't argue with statistics, but I wonder if this rise in per capita income reflects rising wages or increasing employment? If its the latter then it will eventually have to level off.
In any case, if wages get too high, then, as you said is happening now, businesess will just move elsewhere, unless there is no place left where they are allowed to exploit people.


I don't see how.

What you propose is what the USSR had, or any socialist theory. Everyone in the world making the same amount of money (u know what I mean on average), and the same labour standards, that would mean lower productivity because competition simply doesn't exist, companies not able to make profits, and thus pushing everyone down on a equal footing. Using your logic the average person should only make $7,400 per annum with the total world economy is that really development? competion between countries trying to lure in companies by having more oppressive labor standards then one another would not exist, but, for example, US companies were doing just fine before they started moving all the jobs overseas, obviously they can make more profit by pocketing the money they would otherwise use to pay workers reasonable wages, but I don't really see any problem with making it impossible for them to do that, nor how it would destroy productivity.
I have no idea where your gettting the 7400 dollar figure, nor how this has anything to do with the soviet union.


Well let me address the first part. To a 3rd world worker which is more important:
- Job that has high standards of labour, but pays less
- Job that pays more but less labour protection?

Think of this in a 3rd world context not a western centric one, which one brings food to the table? Of course it is morally reprehensible but that is again just the pathetic state of mankind today.

Then about inflation, I know that in China there was a period of deflation during that period. China has virtually no inflation so yes it was real growth. Not too sure about India...but India does have a huge and growing middle class. Something is going right obviously.
It is the state of mankind today, but that doesnt' mean that it is at all acceptable.
I dont' know the specifics again, but again if this reflects increasing employment it will have to level off. If something is going right in India, I doubt it is the tightening of borders by their neighbors and the removal of labor standards.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.


Indeed and the precedent has been when you have a centralized economic structure you have a centralized governmental structure which would mean Stalinism, and for the 3rd world Juche (self-reliance) which is essentially what you are advocating for some states. North Korea is a disaster economically after following Juche economic models, even NK now realizes that it has to open up. It is accepting FDI believe it or not. All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.
I am not sure why you keep bringing up stalinism, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.



You could argue that and I don't disagree, but being a devils advocate, it is not the market imposing on the farmer to sell anything. As Sartre says “We are condemned to be Free” If the farmer doesn't own his land it is.

Lower the wages in the usa to Mexican standards, trade the SUV for a mule ;) Or start officially buying black tar heroine from mexican farmers, this way you will increase the livingstandard of everyday mexicans (instead of some superrich cartels) and you will lower the price/the need for usa tar addicts to do criminal acts for scoring heroine.

From a moral perspective it hard to judge about illegal immigrants because as somebody pointed out, many of who call themselves americans, their ancesters kicked out the native americans, but screw moralism for a while, because fact of everyday life remains that everybody is fighting for a bone and when you get too many dogs fighting for the same bone you get trouble, therefor the concern about immigrants is understandable.

From a pragmatic perspective, somebody said station troops along the border, that could be a viable option, if america is to keep such a huge army they might as well let it to something usefull(?) in peacetime.

On second thougts, give some headhunting tribes from papua-guinea a green card and assign the mexican border for them to use as game hunting zone

See my first post

Clearly not sufficient, can you try a little harder?

if the reason US corporations are investing in mexico is because they have lax labor laws then it is in the US' interest to maintain those lax labor laws. opening the borders would make it against the US' interest.

Exactly my point on this, the US wants Mexico to become the land of cheap labour. The US needs cheap goods in order for her citizens to enjoy the material wealth they enjoy today, due to the fact that real American wages have dropped, but as has consumer goods prices. If things were still being made in the US, eventually it would be too expensive due to regulation, and wages. Now listen closely American corporations don't care about America, they care for profit, corporations are now Transnational, with no national allegiance.


Not being knowledgable about the particulars I dont' know what steps would have to be taken to improve the standards and provide well-paying jobs in mexico, but whatever those steps are, I think my proposal would hasten them.

That is not economically viable for Mexico, if Mexico increasing the labour costs of her country, TNCs will simply pack up and leave to greener pastures, Mexico would be much poorer for it. And then there will be a flood of immigrants to the US. Your plan sadly will only make the situation much worse.

I can't argue with statistics, but I wonder if this rise in per capita income reflects rising wages or increasing employment?

Well it was in constant 1990 dollars so it was a real increase in per capita income. Now does that mean more money was in the hands of the wealthy? Most likely, but we can't say differently yet:

Labour costs per hour (USD) 1.26(1999) 1.57(2000) 1.74(2001) 1.79(2002)

In any case, if wages get too high, then, as you said is happening now, businesess will just move elsewhere, unless there is no place left where they are allowed to exploit people.

And that would again be totally counter productive to your plans.

competion between countries trying to lure in companies by having more oppressive labor standards then one another would not exist,

Oppressive cannot be said right across the board, yes some are. But what corporations are looking for first and foremost is cheap labour.

for example, US companies were doing just fine before they started moving all the jobs overseas,

They were? Odd I thought the late 70's and early 80's was a very bad economic climate.

nor how it would destroy productivity.

Americans today are working harder (in vain) because they fear for their job security, thus increasing productivity. Sick I agree but it works.

I have no idea where your gettting the 7400 dollar figure

Sorry it's $7900 per capita if we use your "equal pay" theory worldwide:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ

nor how this has anything to do with the soviet union.

Equal pay, and low productivity u make the connections.

If something is going right in India, I doubt it is the tightening of borders by their neighbors and the removal of labor standards.

It is the low cost of her work force, it the socialist policies of India (healthcare, etc), high education, and a huge work force, always wiling to work for less.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

I have mentioned them already haven't I? Centralization of economic powers is counterproductive in all states that have used it. Collectivization actually to my knowledge is not a big thing in NK actually. Juche would not support it.

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.

How are they going to advance? How are they going to build their markets? They will have inept, and large bureaucratic economies that will become stagnate very quickly.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up stalinism, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It is usually an eventuality of what you advocate for 3rd world nations.


If the farmer doesn't own his land it is

If is not an argument in the way you use the word.

See my first post

Clearly not sufficient, can you try a little harder?
Good wages in Mexico would remove the motivation for people to leave mexico. making that happen would become necesarry for the US if the borders were open as I have described.

if the reason US corporations are investing in mexico is because they have lax labor laws then it is in the US' interest to maintain those lax labor laws. opening the borders would make it against the US' interest.


Exactly my point on this, the US wants Mexico to become the land of cheap labour. The US needs cheap goods in order for her citizens to enjoy the material wealth they enjoy today, due to the fact that real American wages have dropped, but as has consumer goods prices. If things were still being made in the US, eventually it would be too expensive due to regulation, and wages. Now listen closely American corporations don't care about America, they care for profit, corporations are now Transnational, with no national allegiance.Where do you get the idea that things would be too expensive if things were made in the US? Companies would just have to deal with smaller profit margins. Are you making the argument that we should maintain low wages and oppresive working conditons around the world so that Americans can have their current standard of living? The fact is, companies don't always lower prices when they move overseas.


That is not economically viable for Mexico, if Mexico increasing the labour costs of her country, TNCs will simply pack up and leave to greener pastures, Mexico would be much poorer for it. And then there will be a flood of immigrants to the US. Your plan sadly will only make the situation much worse. If steps are not taken ahead of time to make sure that companies don't leave Mexico then it likely would be a disaster in the short term, but ultimately the US would be forced to take the necesarry steps to remove the incentive for workers to leave mexico and the situation would be fixed.

I can't argue with statistics, but I wonder if this rise in per capita income reflects rising wages or increasing employment?


Well it was in constant 1990 dollars so it was a real increase in per capita income. Now does that mean more money was in the hands of the wealthy? Most likely, but we can't say differently yet:

Labour costs per hour (USD) 1.26(1999) 1.57(2000) 1.74(2001) 1.79(2002)

[B]In any case, if wages get too high, then, as you said is happening now, businesess will just move elsewhere, unless there is no place left where they are allowed to exploit people.

And that would again be totally counter productive to your plans.
No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.


Oppressive cannot be said right across the board, yes some are. But what corporations are looking for first and foremost is cheap labour. Most all of them are. oppression makes labor cheaper.

for example, US companies were doing just fine before they started moving all the jobs overseas,


They were? Odd I thought the late 70's and early 80's was a very bad economic climate. and before that?




Americans today are working harder (in vain) because they fear for their job security, thus increasing productivity. Sick I agree but it works. Perhaps. another way of increasing productivity is creating a situation where people can take pride in their work, but of course thats too expensive.


I have no idea where your gettting the 7400 dollar figure

Sorry it's $7900 per capita if we use your "equal pay" theory worldwide:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ
So you're saying that increasing regulations so that worldwide, it is illegal to pay someone less than a livable wage, would lead to everyone making less than a livable wage?




Equal pay, and low productivity u make the connections. I suppose you could draw a sort of convoluted misinformed connection between raising labor standards worldwide and the USSR, however I could more accurately argue that what you're advocating, closed borders, oppressive labor standards, and low wages seems to have more in common with it.


It is the low cost of her work force, it the socialist policies of India (healthcare, etc), high education, and a huge work force, always wiling to work for less. and where does the money for these socialist policies come from? I suppose people don't need as much pay if they're getting taken care of by the government.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.


I have mentioned them already haven't I? Centralization of economic powers is counterproductive in all states that have used it. Collectivization actually to my knowledge is not a big thing in NK actually. Juche would not support it. alright then. why say collectivization is doing more damage than globalization then?

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.


How are they going to advance? How are they going to build their markets? They will have inept, and large bureaucratic economies that will become stagnate very quickly. Why would they have to have such bureaucracies? In any case, if advancement means allowing foreign corporations to come in and take the countries resources at far below their actual value, then maybe they're better off without it.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up stalinism, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It is usually an eventuality of what you advocate for 3rd world nations.
Open borders and labor laws lead to stalinism? this is getting ridiculous.



If the farmer doesn't own his land it is

If is not an argument in the way you use the word.
You're assertion that farmers choose to grow for export and that the problems associated with this practice are therefore their own fault would only apply if farmers chose to do this on their own land, as it is, the people who farm the land and would previously be able to keep some of what they grew for their own families do not usually own the land, and instead are told what to grow by wealthy individuals who do.

You have no right to say that.

You don't believe in freedom of speech?


There are 1.5 billion people in China, 1 billion in India. Don't you think that should be spread out a little?

If we did, we'd go live in China or India. I like a nation with wide open spaces. I am a cowboy, after all. Why should the population density of my country be increased at a geometric rate because people in China and India can't stop crapping out children?


I think that it's for the good of the entire world. You think too small.

It's good for the world to be as crowded as Japan? I'd doubt it.


Don't forget, had Hitler not driven out the Jews, they might've developed the nuclear bomb, and won WW2. What you're doing now is driving out the Jews.

If the Germans had driven out Austrian-born Hitler there may never have been a World War II.

Good wages in Mexico would remove the motivation for people to leave mexico. making that happen would become necesarry for the US if the borders were open as I have described.

Again this cannot and will not happen, good wages will make the Mexican economy go south, and only increase the wave of immigration. Do you actually believe (naively) that American companies are going to tolerate higher pay? No, they will leave, and yes some token Mexicans will have good paying jobs, but the majority will be out of work and moving on up, to the border.

Where do you get the idea that things would be too expensive if things were made in the US?

Are you telling me that it wouldn't be more expensive to buy an American shirt rather then a Chinese made shirt?

Companies would just have to deal with smaller profit margins.

And companies are not wiling to do that. Where are you getting this notion that companies care about your value system? What they care about is profit, why would they want less? Companies discontinue products because they don't enough profit not that they lose money for the company.

Are you making the argument that we should maintain low wages and oppressive working conditions around the world so that Americans can have their current standard of living? The fact is, companies don't always lower prices when they move overseas.

If steps are not taken ahead of time to make sure that companies don't leave Mexico then it likely would be a disaster in the short term, but ultimately the US would be forced to take the necesarry steps to remove the incentive for workers to leave mexico and the situation would be fixed.

What steps will be taken? These companies are huge lobby forces in Washington, so good luck.

No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.

Someone somewhere will always be wiling to work on the cheap. Let's say that Washington passes a law saying that any American corp. needs to follow x guidelines overseas. Those corps. will probably leave the US altogether and set up shop somewhere else, and everyone loses. China is not going to give up her low wage position anytime soon, as long as she's wiling there will always be a place to go. 50 million ppl every year going in the work force, there is no problem. Sorry Mexico will lose on this.

and before that?

And before that they existed in a heavily regulated even subsidized economic system that collapses in 1972, and from 72-82 there was a very rough patch. Before that period of time corporations were not really being competitive.

Perhaps. another way of increasing productivity is creating a situation where people can take pride in their work, but of course thats too expensive.

That doesn't matter, when you have 50 million ppl wiling to replace you. You are not indispensable in the NWO.

So you're saying that increasing regulations so that worldwide, it is illegal to pay someone less than a livable wage, would lead to everyone making less than a livable wage?

It would lead to scapegoat countries, for instance China. Who will not abide by this law. Corps. will flock to China for workers, and then the rest of the world will lose jobs and have a noticeable decline in wages, and much higher unemployment. In the west you already have the downward trend, lower wages, low inflation, verge deflation, and debt. Which all leads to the West being dragged down, and the 3rd world being brought up until they reach the synthesis, which is $7900. If we put up regulations things will get much worse, very quickly.


I suppose you could draw a sort of convoluted misinformed connection between raising labor standards worldwide and the USSR,

Your negative connotations indicate a cognitive surrender champ. You contradict yourself in that quote anyways.

however I could more accurately argue that what you're advocating, closed borders, oppressive labor standards, and low wages seems to have more in common with it.

I am arguing the reality, the way things work. Do I like it? Of course not, but I am not pretending to believe in some international egalitarianism worldwide, capitalism does not work like that.

and where does the money for these socialist policies come from? I suppose people don't need as much pay if they're getting taken care of by the government.

More investment means more consumer society (China for instance major consumer society now), and increase in wages through spending, and increase in taxes.

alright then. why say collectivization is doing more damage than globalization then?

Because the collectivized state sets quota's, and they have to met at any cost. That is the way the system works, you have to make sure that you have enough for your family, and for the government. If there is shortage guess who pays? In globalization (albeit very bad) the biggest problem is exactly what you advocate, regulations, and tariffs, etc. 3rd world farmers could make a killing if their trading partners weren't regualting and subsidizing their farmers. Things you undoubtlessly support.

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.

What is the alternative?

Why would they have to have such bureaucracies?

How couldn't they is the real question?

In any case, if advancement means allowing foreign corporations to come in and take the countries resources at far below their actual value, then maybe they're better off without it.

There is a axiom I like to share with you:

The only thing worse then having a TNC, is not having a TNC

Open borders and labor laws lead to stalinism? this is getting ridiculous.

You are advocating the opposite for these states, closed borders, internal development, central planning, collectivization= Stalinism. You should learn how to connect the dots.

You're assertion that farmers choose to grow for export and that the problems associated with this practice are therefore their own fault would only apply if farmers chose to do this on their own land, as it is, the people who farm the land and would previously be able to keep some of what they grew for their own families do not usually own the land, and instead are told what to grow by wealthy individuals who do.

But you are saying this as if it were every farmer in the 3rd world is in the same situation. If the farm off an owners land, don't you think the owner has a right to tell them what to do? Of course the owner should allow a decent wage, and enough food for the farmers. But the owners are not doing anything they shouldn't.

Good wages in Mexico would remove the motivation for people to leave mexico. making that happen would become necesarry for the US if the borders were open as I have described.

[QUOTE=Undecided]Again this cannot and will not happen, good wages will make the Mexican economy go south, and only increase the wave of immigration. Do you actually believe (naively) that American companies are going to tolerate higher pay? No, they will leave, and yes some token Mexicans will have good paying jobs, but the majority will be out of work and moving on up, to the border.
I don't think American companies should have a choice. The US could simply not accept imports from countries(or individual companies for that matter) that engage in these practices.

Where do you get the idea that things would be too expensive if things were made in the US?


Are you telling me that it wouldn't be more expensive to buy an American shirt rather then a Chinese made shirt? yes,




And companies are not wiling to do that. Where are you getting this notion that companies care about your value system? What they care about is profit, why would they want less? Companies discontinue products because they don't enough profit not that they lose money for the company.
If they raised prices they would sell fewer products, as long as their still making a significant profit that would not be in their interest.




What steps will be taken? These companies are huge lobby forces in Washington, so good luck.
No steps will be taken, including the initial steps I'm proposing. That doesn't mean they wouldn't work if they were.

No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.


Someone somewhere will always be wiling to work on the cheap. Let's say that Washington passes a law saying that any American corp. needs to follow x guidelines overseas. Those corps. will probably leave the US altogether and set up shop somewhere else, and everyone loses. China is not going to give up her low wage position anytime soon, as long as she's wiling there will always be a place to go. 50 million ppl every year going in the work force, there is no problem. Sorry Mexico will lose on this.
If no one allows imports from countries with cheap labor than there wouldn't be any reason for companies to use it. There doesn't always have to be such places.


And before that they existed in a heavily regulated even subsidized economic system that collapses in 1972, and from 72-82 there was a very rough patch. Before that period of time corporations were not really being competitive. The fact of the matter is, corporations used to pay higher taxes, pay higher wages(in this country), and still be profitable. Many of the companies moving overseas now are doing quite well economically, but obviously given an oppurtunity to be even more profitable they will take it. If that oppurtunity wasn't there they'd still be doing just fine here.


That doesn't matter, when you have 50 million ppl wiling to replace you. You are not indispensable in the NWO. I'm saying it shouldn't be that way.

So you're saying that increasing regulations so that worldwide, it is illegal to pay someone less than a livable wage, would lead to everyone making less than a livable wage?


It would lead to scapegoat countries, for instance China. Who will not abide by this law. Corps. will flock to China for workers, and then the rest of the world will lose jobs and have a noticeable decline in wages, and much higher unemployment. In the west you already have the downward trend, lower wages, low inflation, verge deflation, and debt. Which all leads to the West being dragged down, and the 3rd world being brought up until they reach the synthesis, which is $7900. If we put up regulations things will get much worse, very quickly. You don't think China would abide by those laws if it meant no one would accept their exports?


I suppose you could draw a sort of convoluted misinformed connection between raising labor standards worldwide and the USSR,


Your negative connotations indicate a cognitive surrender champ. You contradict yourself in that quote anyways. no, it indicates my growing annoyance with the fact that your argument is increasingly sounding like "You said you were a communist elsewhere and the USSR failed, therefore whatever you're saying now is wrong"

however I could more accurately argue that what you're advocating, closed borders, oppressive labor standards, and low wages seems to have more in common with it.


I am arguing the reality, the way things work. Do I like it? Of course not, but I am not pretending to believe in some international egalitarianism worldwide, capitalism does not work like that.
You are pointing out that right now things don't work like that, and you're right that they are unlikely to in the future, but if the steps I've outlined were taken, then it would.

[


More investment means more consumer society (China for instance major consumer society now), and increase in wages through spending, and increase in taxes.
To have a consumer society you have to have consumers who can afford to consume more than the bare minimum required to survive.

alright then. why say collectivization is doing more damage than globalization then?


Because the collectivized state sets quota's, and they have to met at any cost. That is the way the system works, you have to make sure that you have enough for your family, and for the government. If there is shortage guess who pays? In globalization (albeit very bad) the biggest problem is exactly what you advocate, regulations, and tariffs, etc. 3rd world farmers could make a killing if their trading partners weren't regualting and subsidizing their farmers. Things you undoubtlessly support. quotas are not included in the definition of collectivization.





How couldn't they is the real question?
No, you asserted that countries that didn't participate in "free trade" that didn't benefit them would automatically have horrible bureaucracies for governments.
There's no apparent connection there. If you can support this position do so.


In any case, if advancement means allowing foreign corporations to come in and take the countries resources at far below their actual value, then maybe they're better off without it.

There is a axiom I like to share with you:

The only thing worse then having a TNC, is not having a TNC
Thats not an argument


Open borders and labor laws lead to stalinism? this is getting ridiculous.

You are advocating the opposite for these states, closed borders, internal development, central planning, collectivization= Stalinism. You should learn how to connect the dots. In no way am I doing that.


But you are saying this as if it were every farmer in the 3rd world is in the same situation. If the farm off an owners land, don't you think the owner has a right to tell them what to do? Of course the owner should allow a decent wage, and enough food for the farmers. But the owners are not doing anything they shouldn't.It is the case for many.

skipping your guys' debate:

if illegals became legal citizens, they would be able to earn minimum wage rather than 1$ an hour. Im sure there are thousands of lawyers who would take such cases. Legalizing all those now illegal would among other things, but probably most notably, drive up food prices(meat+agriculture). I dont see any of those republicans getting donations from the meatpackers and agriculture trusts(which they are) anytime soon if they let this pass...Obvious question, why would Bush present something that seems generous to a large minority but knowingly wont pass Congress by anyone?

On second thougts, give some headhunting tribes from papua-guinea a green card and assign the mexican border for them to use as game hunting zone
Very funny, I guess I'll have to revert to my ancestral Aztec religion, & start sacrificing beating hearts, we've got 500 years of catch up

In a globalised economy, people should have free right of movement.

I don't think American companies should have a choice.

Of course they do, they can simply pack up and leave the US. Set up shop in Peru, or the Cayman islands and do the do as usual.

The US could simply not accept imports from countries(or individual companies for that matter) that engage in these practices.

Which would lead to an economic collapse in the US, Wal-Mart alone depends on Chinese goods, and Wal-Mart if it were a country would be the fifth largest importer of Chinese goods, and guess who number 1 is? The US, and the US dependence on Chinese goods is only increasing already she has a $100 billion trade deficit with China, meaning if she cut China off, she would suffer a major consumer lead recession and one she would recover from for a very long time. This theory of yours is not based on reality, or any pragmatic goals. Sorry, but it sounds very ideological, but not very informed.

yes,

This is supposed to be a answer? Explain how? I think what you are trying to say (oddly) is that if you increase Chinese goods prices then the US will eventually be cheaper. This will not and really cannot happen.

If they raised prices they would sell fewer products, as long as their still making a significant profit that would not be in their interest.

No, if the company can be making even more profit they would do it. That is the goal of corporatism. To get the most money possible out of each cent, a company will have no qualms for abandoning a region if their labour standards and their wages are too high, i.e. Mexican jobs leaving for cheaper China. Meaning more unemployed, more abject poverty, more illegal’s to the US. See the connection?

No steps will be taken, including the initial steps I'm proposing. That doesn't mean they wouldn't work if they were.

No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.

These steps will not get off the ground in the first place, all major corporations will make sure that bill dies:

Here's a list of corporations you will have to beat. (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html)

If no one allows imports from countries with cheap labor than there wouldn't be any reason for companies to use it. There doesn't always have to be such places.

Again this will not happen because there will always be the hold outs. The US is get this: dependant on cheaply made goods for her economic vitality. The US doesn't have a choice, comprende? Especially when you have a trade deficit.

The fact of the matter is, corporations used to pay higher taxes, pay higher wages(in this country), and still be profitable.

Because they were protected, they were government sponsored, and by the late 70's many corporations were not profitable, and many of them simply disappeared. The Keynesians economic model had served it's purpose now it was rusty and old. You can only exploit a market so much you know.

Many of the companies moving overseas now are doing quite well economically, but obviously given an oppurtunity to be even more profitable they will take it. If that oppurtunity wasn't there they'd still be doing just fine here.

China will allow those corps. to come in a exploit their cheap labour, as long as you have a wiling partner there will no chance for change. Ask a typical American consumer, "are you wiling to pay more for something when you could pay less" they would say no, in a resounding majority.

I'm saying it shouldn't be that way.

It shouldn't but it is.

You don't think China would abide by those laws if it meant no one would accept their exports?

Again China has very little to fear, western economies will suffer as well if China was cut off, you simply cannot cut off a $6 trillion economy. One of the great success' of American foreign policy has been the opening of China, and that is not going to be reversed anytime soon. China is safe, don't worry about it. No one is going to say no to China.

no, it indicates my growing annoyance with the fact that your argument is increasingly sounding like "You said you were a communist elsewhere and the USSR failed, therefore whatever you're saying now is wrong"

Firstly you assume that I am connecting you being a communist to the USSR, not true. Sadly though I do believe that you do have the wrong idea about things, I can see the Soviet influence in you. Sadly Soviet is not communist, and is a poor excuse for communism, I would be a communist too, I find Marx's arguments very compelling and true. But I realize that the implementation leads to disaster.


You are pointing out that right now things don't work like that, and you're right that they are unlikely to in the future, but if the steps I've outlined were taken, then it would.

Would not work, your system would not work, it hasn't worked, and it is a failure.

To have a consumer society you have to have consumers who can afford to consume more than the bare minimum required to survive.

What do you think Globalization is? Think about Globalization before I answer for you. Connect the dots please...

quotas are not included in the definition of collectivization.

Collectivization has no set definition, and the historical precedent has been a quota system. What would be the point of collectivization without a quota system in the first place?

No, you asserted that countries that didn't participate in "free trade" that didn't benefit them would automatically have horrible bureaucracies for governments.

And history has proven this to be correct, or if not bureaucracies ineffective, and non-profitable corporations of the government whose sole purpose is to create jobs to sustain the population, and token exports. Argentina, to Ghana shows this to fail.

There's no apparent connection there. If you can support this position do so.

Ok shall I?

The Chinese since accepting FDI in the early 80's she has experienced the world's largest boom economically ever, she has pulled out 400 million ppl from poverty, and her HDI figures have increased .2 over that time frame, no nation has achieved that. In that same period of time China became a export oriented economy, and has over $400 billion of FDI. So my point is proven, shall we compare it to what you advocate, Maoism's failure?


Thats not an argument

Read above...

In no way am I doing that.

No, semantically you aren’t, but we mean the same thing.

It is the case for many

That really is no argument, appeal to popularity alert.

I don't think American companies should have a choice.

Of course they do, they can simply pack up and leave the US. Set up shop in Peru, or the Cayman islands and do the do as usual.
Note the word "should"


Which would lead to an economic collapse in the US, Wal-Mart alone depends on Chinese goods, and Wal-Mart if it were a country would be the fifth largest importer of Chinese goods, and guess who number 1 is? The US, and the US dependence on Chinese goods is only increasing already she has a $100 billion trade deficit with China, meaning if she cut China off, she would suffer a major consumer lead recession and one she would recover from for a very long time. This theory of yours is not based on reality, or any pragmatic goals. Sorry, but it sounds very ideological, but not very informed.
There's often a disparity between the performance of the market and the well-being of the population. Right now the market is doing well, but hordes of people are unemployed. If US corporations lost their ability to exploit people overseas they would become less profitable and there would probably be a recession, but there would also still be a demand for the products now being built overseas and a lot of unemployed people in the US willing to build them. Even if, god forbid, wal-mart went bankrupt, someone would step in to fill the demand with US made goods. More people in the US would be employed which would in turn increase demand for goods. Even in the US, people would ultimately benefit from making it impossible for corporations to exploit poor labor laws overseas.


yes,

This is supposed to be a answer? Explain how? I think what you are trying to say (oddly) is that if you increase Chinese goods prices then the US will eventually be cheaper. This will not and really cannot happen.
Probably not cheaper, in some cases maybe a little more expensive. The fact is, companies generally do not pass the savings of using cheap labor on to the consumer.


No, if the company can be making even more profit they would do it. That is the goal of corporatism. To get the most money possible out of each cent, a company will have no qualms for abandoning a region if their labour standards and their wages are too high, i.e. Mexican jobs leaving for cheaper China. Meaning more unemployed, more abject poverty, more illegal’s to the US. See the connection?
What does this have to do with the fact that a corporation will not raise the price of a product to a point where fewer people would buy it if it is already profitable?


No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.

These steps will not get off the ground in the first place, all major corporations will make sure that bill dies:

Here's a list of corporations you will have to beat. (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html)

Again this will not happen because there will always be the hold outs. The US is get this: dependant on cheaply made goods for her economic vitality. The US doesn't have a choice, comprende? Especially when you have a trade deficit. I believe thats what I said. No, it is not likely to happen, but you can't make an argument about what the effects of something would be if it happend by saying that it won't happen.
The US' dependance on cheaply made goods is not a desirable situation, and can be rectified, as I've pointed out.


Because they were protected, they were government sponsored, and by the late 70's many corporations were not profitable, and many of them simply disappeared. The Keynesians economic model had served it's purpose now it was rusty and old. You can only exploit a market so much you know. Even today, there are profitable corporations moving production overseas to be even more profitable. Its not as if this all happend thirty years ago.


China will allow those corps. to come in a exploit their cheap labour, as long as you have a wiling partner there will no chance for change. Ask a typical American consumer, "are you wiling to pay more for something when you could pay less" they would say no, in a resounding majority. As I've already said, we should not allow imports from countries with weak labor laws, and companies do not generally pass the savings of cheap labor on to the consumers.



Again China has very little to fear, western economies will suffer as well if China was cut off, you simply cannot cut off a $6 trillion economy. One of the great success' of American foreign policy has been the opening of China, and that is not going to be reversed anytime soon. China is safe, don't worry about it. No one is going to say no to China.
Once again, saying that something won't happen has no bearing on whether or not it would work if it did.


Firstly you assume that I am connecting you being a communist to the USSR, not true. I can think of no other explanation for your bringing up irrelevant references to the USSR


Sadly though I do believe that you do have the wrong idea about things, I can see the Soviet influence in you. Sadly Soviet is not communist, and is a poor excuse for communism,
As I've pointed out, you're position has more in common with Stalinism than mine.

I would be a communist too, I find Marx's arguments very compelling and true. But I realize that the implementation leads to disaster. This is contradictory.


[
To have a consumer society you have to have consumers who can afford to consume more than the bare minimum required to survive.

What do you think Globalization is? Think about Globalization before I answer for you. Connect the dots please... globalization as its taking place today creates slave laborers, not consumers in the sense that US workers are.

quotas are not included in the definition of collectivization.


[
[B]Collectivization has no set definition, and the historical precedent has been a quota system. What would be the point of collectivization without a quota system in the first place? you're saying the point of collectivization is to have quotas? what do you think collectivization is?


And history has proven this to be correct, or if not bureaucracies ineffective, and non-profitable corporations of the government whose sole purpose is to create jobs to sustain the population, and token exports. Argentina, to Ghana shows this to fail. Argentina collapsed because of globalization not due to the lack of it. I'm not familiar with the situation in Ghana.


Ok shall I?

The Chinese since accepting FDI in the early 80's she has experienced the world's largest boom economically ever, she has pulled out 400 million ppl from poverty, and her HDI figures have increased .2 over that time frame, no nation has achieved that. In that same period of time China became a export oriented economy, and has over $400 billion of FDI. So my point is proven, shall we compare it to what you advocate, Maoism's failure?
First off, I'm not advocating Maoism, and second, the above information in no way supports your position that countries which do not participate in globalization that is against their interest must always have bureaucratic governments.




No, semantically you aren’t, but we mean the same thing. Thats absurd, how can you claim that my argument that we should open the borders, although i'm not semantically saying it means the same thing as "we should close the borders"?



That really is no argument, appeal to popularity alert.It was a response to your argument that countries growing for export to the detriment of the growers is the fault of the growers because they made the decision. The fact is, that many of the people who suffer, are not the ones making the decisions.

Note the word "should"

You are then appealing to emotions of corps. You know they don't have such things.

[B]There's often a disparity between the performance of the market and the well-being of the population.

Globalization cares for the former not the latter, you don't understand this. This is why your position is much uninformed; you assume the goal of Globalization is to improve the living standards of the world. No, her first goal is improve the markets, so she can make more money. You don’t understand the simple coloration btwn re-allocation of funds worldwide. Globalization is sucking money out of the west into the east, thus making more markets. Are you beginning to understand?

Right now the market is doing well, but hordes of people are unemployed.

But their jobs still exist, the US is not the world, ok. Their jobs are now merely overseas. Let me put it like this: one American workers labour costs is $20/hr, in China that could employ around 25 ppl in China. That I assume would be good wouldn't it? The companies aren't losing anything; they are employing more ppl, saving more money, and creating a consumer culture overseas. You assume that the money will simply go up and no where else, of course your western centrism, and geographical centrism prevents you from understand that the US is the not the whole picture. I beg you to think holistically please.

If US corporations lost their ability to exploit people overseas they would become less profitable and there would probably be a recession, but there would also still be a demand for the products now being built overseas and a lot of unemployed people in the US willing to build them.

You again assume that corporations want that, they don't want American employees anymore.

Even if, god forbid, wal-mart went bankrupt, someone would step in to fill the demand with US made goods.

I cannot even fathom who or what will employ low skilled workers from Wal-Mart. In the US who number 1 million in the US, and 300,000 in the rest of the world. You just advocated the complete opposite of what you are trying to do. These ppl will not find jobs, unless they take the jobs that Mexican workers are doing now. You are making the cause of the proletariat that much worse.

More people in the US would be employed which would in turn increase demand for goods.

That is not sustainable; there is again only a certain limit to this economic logic. Again this system in the US failed by 1972 and that's why we have what we have today. You are stuck in a bygone era, I suggest you look at the economic practices of other nations, and times. Because this is getting very childish.

Even in the US, people would ultimately benefit from making it impossible for corporations to exploit poor labor laws overseas.

Ppl in the US will not benefit, they will have a huge loss of corp. jobs.

Probably not cheaper, in some cases maybe a little more expensive. The fact is, companies generally do not pass the savings of using cheap labor on to the consumer.

Are you sure? Let's use an example:

Let's say it costs a company in Honduras to make shoes $15 and she sells them for $150, to make a profit of $135

Let's say it costs a company in Ohio to make shoes for $30 and she sells them for $165, to make a profit of $135.

See they can still make the same profit, but guess who suffers.

What does this have to do with the fact that a corporation will not raise the price of a product to a point where fewer people would buy it if it is already profitable?

Remember the world cannot lose money; the same amount of money exists. The only thing is that it is in more ppl's hands, and more employment. Because prices of goods go down wages can be lower and there will still be profit.

I believe thats what I said. No, it is not likely to happen, but you can't make an argument about what the effects of something would be if it happend by saying that it won't happen.

Sure I can, why not? Will a UFO land in your backyard?

The US' dependance on cheaply made goods is not a desirable situation, and can be rectified, as I've pointed out.

You have not pointed anything out, please quite the opposite. The US is currently dependant on foreign goods; it is not something the US can say, "Well we get out of the world economy". That time has passed the only thing you can do know is try to make Americans and American companies competitive.

As I've already said, we should not allow imports from countries with weak labor laws, and companies do not generally pass the savings of cheap labor on to the consumers.

Do tell, who or what will make up that loss? The US trade balance is $508 billion in the hole, that is -42% as percentage of imports. I would love to hear how the US will recover from $1.5 trillion worth of investment overseas, and not have a decline in living standards. I would love to hear how Americans will be able to afford more expensive goods, when they are making less then they were in 1975 when many goods were made in the US. Love to hear this...

Once again, saying that something won't happen has no bearing on whether or not it would work if it did.

What is the point of wasting my time with your fantasies?

As I've pointed out, you're position has more in common with Stalinism than mine.

You advocate Stalinist doctrine, Juche, doctrine in 3rd world nations, and you don't even see it.

This is contradictory.

Re-read what I said, "I would be a communist...."

globalization as its taking place today creates slave laborers, not consumers in the sense that US workers are.

You are so limited; you cannot see the long term benefits. Live for today I guess...

you're saying the point of collectivization is to have quotas? what do you think collectivization is?

Collectivization is the seizure of land from land owners, to the state. The state then groups those farmers into a collective to make crops for the government so the government can do x with it. They demand quotas so the government has enough x to feed the population, and possibly export.

Argentina collapsed because of globalization not due to the lack of it.

I am not talking 2001-02, I am talking the early 80's. Limited scope sir, is not your best friend.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Ghana.

I am so shocked! *yawn*

First off, I'm not advocating Maoism, and second, the above information in no way supports your position that countries which do not participate in globalization that is against their interest must always have bureaucratic governments.

But it does support the position that Investment and globalization benefits the population if done correctly. I cannot believe you are against the 400 million Chinese pulled out of poverty. Your economic system would put them right back on subsistence. Name me sir, a nation that was socialist which did not have a large economic bureaucracy?

Thats absurd, how can you claim that my argument that we should open the borders, although i'm not semantically saying it means the same thing as "we should close the borders"?

You say this: nations should close their borders
Translation: Stalinism and government control of the economy.

Clearly some people don't understand the fundamentals of supply and demand.

Wal-Mart is not a function of it's suppliers, it's a function of it's demand, the consumer. If the chinese supplier of Widget X dies tomorrow, someone will step in to supply Widget X to Wal-Mart. If a suitable replacement for said supplier cannot be found overseas, then one will be found in the U.S., and predictably the price of widget X will rise by some measure, but Widget X will still be on the shelves at Wal-Mart. People will complain, but that won't really be a historic event, in and of itself. If you do not understand this, go to the library and get a book called basic principles of economics, read said book, digest, wash down with a beverage of choice, and come back to Sciforums to continue discussion.

That is all. Lesson over. Dinner is at six. ;)

Of course they should be deported. If our government placed Mexicans on notice that persons entering the US illegally WILL be shot, it would resolve the whole matter in a day. Unfortunately, no President of either party has had the guts to simply guard our borders! Let's place the military on that border, and tell them that if it moves, shoot it. Simple, cheap and very effective.

Note the word "should"

You are then appealing to emotions of corps. You know they don't have such things.
Thats ridiculous. I've clearly outlined how I would prevent corporations from doing this, and it has nothing to do with their emotions.


There's often a disparity between the performance of the market and the well-being of the population.

Globalization cares for the former not the latter
Exactly my point, it supports the former to the detriment of the latter.

,
you don't understand this. This is why your position is much uninformed; you assume the goal of Globalization is to improve the living standards of the world. No, her first goal is improve the markets, so she can make more money. You don’t understand the simple coloration btwn re-allocation of funds worldwide. Globalization is sucking money out of the west into the east, thus making more markets. Are you beginning to understand?
I certainly never said anything to the effect that globalization's purpose is to improve living conditions. My whole argument has been based around the fact that, as practiced today, globalization does not increase the living standards of most of the people effected. As to it sucking money out of the West, its true in the sense that corporations are paying wages to people outside of the west as opposed to the people in the west, however, the product and profit of the labor of the third world is being sucked INTO the west at a rate whose value far exceeds that of the money that is being invested.


Right now the market is doing well, but hordes of people are unemployed.


But their jobs still exist, the US is not the world, ok. Their jobs are now merely overseas. Let me put it like this: one American workers labour costs is $20/hr, in China that could employ around 25 ppl in China. That I assume would be good wouldn't it?
And if there was a country in which people could be payed a penny an hour it could employ hundreds of people. That doesn't mean that it would be a good thing. That American laborer would be making enough money to support his family comfortably and also increase demand for consumer goods by having disposable income to spend on them. Those 25 chinese workers would be making barely enough to take care of themselves.


The companies aren't losing anything; they are employing more ppl, saving more money, and creating a consumer culture overseas. You assume that the money will simply go up and no where else,
Once again, you can't be a consumer unless you make enough money to buy consumer goods.


of course your western centrism, and geographical centrism prevents you from understand that the US is the not the whole picture. I beg you to think holistically please. You're the one making the argument that low wages and bad working conditions overseas are a necessity.



You again assume that corporations want that, they don't want American employees anymore. They don't want them, because they can get cheap labor elsewhere. If that were no loner the case they would want them again.

Even if, god forbid, wal-mart went bankrupt, someone would step in to fill the demand with US made goods.


I cannot even fathom who or what will employ low skilled workers from Wal-Mart. In the US who number 1 million in the US, and 300,000 in the rest of the world. You just advocated the complete opposite of what you are trying to do. These ppl will not find jobs, unless they take the jobs that Mexican workers are doing now. You are making the cause of the proletariat that much worse. The same people who are now employing unskilled laborers in sweatshops overseas. The jobs that Mexican workers are doing now would not be so terrible if they were subject to US labor laws.


IThat is not sustainable; there is again only a certain limit to this economic logic. Again this system in the US failed by 1972 and that's why we have what we have today. You are stuck in a bygone era, I suggest you look at the economic practices of other nations, and times. Because this is getting very childish. Its never been put into practice in the way I suggest before. I see no reason why it would not be sustainable.


Even in the US, people would ultimately benefit from making it impossible for corporations to exploit poor labor laws overseas.

[QUOTE=Undecided]Ppl in the US will not benefit, they will have a huge loss of corp. jobs.
If corporations no longer had an incentive to keep production overseas the US would lose jobs? I dont' think so.

Probably not cheaper, in some cases maybe a little more expensive. The fact is, companies generally do not pass the savings of using cheap labor on to the consumer.

Are you sure? Let's use an example:


Let's say it costs a company in Honduras to make shoes $15 and she sells them for $150, to make a profit of $135

Let's say it costs a company in Ohio to make shoes for $30 and she sells them for $165, to make a profit of $135.

See they can still make the same profit, but guess who suffers.
Except that raising the price to 165 will cut their sales, lowering their profits. They CAN still make the same profit, if for example, they cut their advertising budget a little bit. A tiny fraction of, for example, Nike's, advertising budget would be sufficient to deal with improving conditions for its workers

What does this have to do with the fact that a corporation will not raise the price of a product to a point where fewer people would buy it if it is already profitable?


Remember the world cannot lose money; the same amount of money exists. The only thing is that it is in more ppl's hands, and more employment. Because prices of goods go down wages can be lower and there will still be profit. Only if the lowering of the wages and prices are in proportion to one another, which, as i said, is not the case.



Sure I can, why not? Will a UFO land in your backyard? You can make any argument you want, but such arguments are illogical, and I'm not going to bother with them in the future.


The US' dependance on cheaply made goods is not a desirable situation, and can be rectified, as I've pointed out.

You have not pointed anything out, please quite the opposite. The US is currently dependant on foreign goods; it is not something the US can say, "Well we get out of the world economy". That time has passed the only thing you can do know is try to make Americans and American companies competitive. I'm not proposing that the US get out of the world economy, I'm proposing that it take steps to make the world economy more beneficial to pretty much everyone.


Do tell, who or what will make up that loss? The US trade balance is $508 billion in the hole, that is -42% as percentage of imports. I would love to hear how the US will recover from $1.5 trillion worth of investment overseas, and not have a decline in living standards. I would love to hear how Americans will be able to afford more expensive goods, when they are making less then they were in 1975 when many goods were made in the US. Love to hear this.. I've already described how this situation can be changed.


As I've pointed out, you're position has more in common with Stalinism than mine.

You advocate Stalinist doctrine, Juche, doctrine in 3rd world nations, and you don't even see it. see bold face above.

This is contradictory.


Re-read what I said, "I would be a communist...." you said Marx's theories are true, but they lead to disaster if put into practice. Since Marx theorized that his philsophy would not lead to disaster, either his theories are not true, and would lead to disaster or they are true and would not. Not both.


You are so limited; you cannot see the long term benefits. Live for today I guess... what long term benefits?


Collectivization is the seizure of land from land owners, to the state. The state then groups those farmers into a collective to make crops for the government so the government can do x with it. They demand quotas so the government has enough x to feed the population, and possibly export. collectivization is the practice of working land collectively, rather than as seperate farms to increase efficiency, that much is true, but although it has been combined with a quota system in the past, quotas are not part of the definition.


Argentina collapsed because of globalization not due to the lack of it.

I am not talking 2001-02, I am talking the early 80's. Limited scope sir, is not your best friend.
And you accuse me of dwelling on the past?
The current situation there doesn't bode well for your notion of long term benefits to globalization.


But it does support the position that Investment and globalization benefits the population if done correctly. I cannot believe you are against the 400 million Chinese pulled out of poverty. Your economic system would put them right back on subsistence.
The situation in China is unusual given the remnants of maoism there. the oppresive labor practices there are somewhat mitigated by the social safety net, but the situation would be greatly improved if the conditions themselves were removed.


Name me sir, a nation that was socialist which did not have a large economic bureaucracy?name me one that did. Not a stalinist country, but a socialist country.


Thats absurd, how can you claim that my argument that we should open the borders, although i'm not semantically saying it means the same thing as "we should close the borders"?

[You say this: nations should close their borders
Translation: Stalinism and government control of the economy.
From my first post: " I think all borders should be opened completely."

• I have been thinking, is it really the fault of the "illegal" immigrants, or the politicians who have defacto actually given permission for them to come here by not enforcing the laws?

• Is a burglar absolved of his guilt because the house he robbed was left unlocked?Just to throw another monkey in the wrench ....

Property is robbery.

i dont feel like reading through all the thread to see if it's been written before.. but..

isn't "illegal immigrant" a semantic oxymoron?

"immigrant" would be legal
if it's "illegal" then the so-called immigrant is nothing than an infiltrator

unless all countries repeal their borders, join hands and start dancing around the fire singing socialist songs, infiltrators should be dealt with as infiltrators. (i.e. to kick them out)

Well already you are simply asking questions JPS that is indicative of a man who merely has no points. You're basic logic is simple, and can quickly be discerned:

i) Corporations are dependant on the State
ii) Since they are dependant they are bound by that states laws.
iii) They will want to increase labour standards because in the long run it will be better for them.
iv) The world will have better and more employment.

There are serious flaws in your logic:

i) TNC are called TNC's for a reason, they are not dependant on one state only.
ii) No political party in the US will dare ostracize her biggest campaign contributors for a principle.
iii) The current administrations goal is to have a globalize American economy that benefits the rich.
iv) You are assuming that ppl care about the Average worker, that is simply not true.
v) Workers are not indispensable, thus even in the US there will be lower wages due to competition for limited jobs.
vi) If the government does close the borders to nations that maintains low living standards, those states could also apply sanctions damaging the US economy two fold.
vii) Even if the US could make goods, they would not be sufficient for demand, and they will be more expensive. Thus demand dries up, and the economy collapses.
viii) Millions of jobs will be lost not gained in the US, the only way the US can make jobs if she "de-globalizes" is if the government makes jobs for them, creating a debacle in the budget, inept, and uncompetitive industries.
ix) The US imports $500 billion worth of goods, there is a reason for that. Because those goods are more competitive, cheaper, and sometimes of higher quality then American goods.
x) You from the posts I have read, are ignorant of past failures of the economic system you propose, my suggestion is :

> Mixed Economy- UK (which is exactly what you want)
> North Korea
> Argentina- 1970'-80's
> Soviet Union

vi) If the government does close the borders to nations that maintains low living standards, those states could also apply sanctions damaging the US economy two fold.

Mexico could levy economic sanctions against the U.S. in response to the U.S. stemming the flow of illegals across the border? Sanctions against what?
This is completely non-sensical. :confused:


vii) Even if the US could make goods, they would not be sufficient for demand, and they will be more expensive. Thus demand dries up, and the economy collapses.

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but you've got your terminology backwards again. If supply wasn't sufficient to keep up with demand, then the price would rise. What specific product are you referring to that would precipitate an "economic collapse" if said product were to rise in price?

I never realized the U.S. economy was such a delicate little flower.

Well already you are simply asking questions JPS that is indicative of a man who merely has no points.I count three questions in my last post, two h of which were rhetorical and one of which was asking you to give an argument for an unsupported assertion.
Perhaps you should have read it before responding.




i) Corporations are dependant on the State
ii) Since they are dependant they are bound by that states laws.
iii) They will want to increase labour standards because in the long run it will be better for them.
iv) The world will have better and more employment.
i) the state grants them a charter, and has the right to revoke it, therefore they are dependant on the state in that sense, however that was never part of my argument and has no real relevance here
ii)they ARE in fact bound by the laws of whatever state they operate in. This is a fact. This is why they try to find the state with the weakest laws.
iii)I never said corporations want to increase labor standards.
iv) the world would have better employment if the steps I've proposed(not the ones you're pretending I've proposed here) were taken.





i) TNC are called TNC's for a reason, they are not dependant on one state only.
ii) No political party in the US will dare ostracize her biggest campaign contributors for a principle.
iii) The current administrations goal is to have a globalize American economy that benefits the rich.
iv) You are assuming that ppl care about the Average worker, that is simply not true.
v) Workers are not indispensable, thus even in the US there will be lower wages due to competition for limited jobs.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to any further "its not going to happen therefore it wouldn't work if it did, but it occurs to me that maybe you really don't grasp the principle.
I will endeavor to explain it to you: I am arguing that if certain steps were taken certain results would happen, this could be symolized as "if A then B" You are attempting to argue that I am wrong: "It is not the case that 'if A then B'
In order for you to show that my argument is wrong, you must show not that B is not the case or that A is not the case but that B would not be the case if A were the case.
Attempting to argue as you are that A is not true therefore it is not the case that "if A then B' is akin to saying that adding a third penny to a pile of two pennies would not yield three pennies because you don't have a third.


vi) If the government does close the borders to nations that maintains low living standards, those states could also apply sanctions damaging the US economy two fold.
This argument started with me saying that I think the borders should be opened and you attacking my statement. Now you are apparently arguing against your own position by saying we should not close the borders.
Perhaps you ran out of arguments for your position, and decided to switch sides. Good move.

Even if the US could make goods, they would not be sufficient for demand, and they will be more expensive. Thus demand dries up, and the economy collapses. Goods can still be made around the world, just under reasonable labor laws.

viii) Millions of jobs will be lost not gained in the US, the only way the US can make jobs if she "de-globalizes" is if the government makes jobs for them, creating a debacle in the budget, inept, and uncompetitive industries.
I've already explained why this is not the case.

ix) The US imports $500 billion worth of goods, there is a reason for that. Because those goods are more competitive, cheaper, and sometimes of higher quality then American goods.

x) You from the posts I have read, are ignorant of past failures of the economic system you propose, my suggestion is :
You, from the posts I've read, have not been reading my posts and therefore are in a poor position to pass judgement.


> Mixed Economy- UK (which is exactly what you want)
> North Korea
> Argentina- 1970'-80's
> Soviet Union
Your suggestion is a list of countries?

Perhaps you should have read it before responding.

I did and the only thing that wasn't redundant was those questions. The other things I alluded to before.

i) the state grants them a charter, and has the right to revoke it, therefore they are dependant on the state in that sense, however that was never part of my argument and has no real relevance here

Of course it is of relevance, if x states HQ is in Bermuda what can y state do against it? It would be unfair trade practice if it slapped sanctions on a foreign company who just happens to sell in the US. The state my geo-centric friend you keep on reverting to is the US, as if it were the world. Look at a atlas please...maybe then you can understand what globalization means.

ii)they ARE in fact bound by the laws of whatever state they operate in. This is a fact. This is why they try to find the state with the weakest laws.

Exactly this makes your point above irrelevant.

iii)I never said corporations want to increase labor standards.

I know, what you want is for them to increase labour standards. Forcing it down their throats, that doesn't seem like "freedom" to me, does it to you? Aren't you being a hypocrite here?

iv) the world would have better employment if the steps I've proposed(not the ones you're pretending I've proposed here) were taken.

You have proposed nothing, all you have been saying is overly generalized, statements, and one word answers like "yes". There is nothing you have said that hasn't been tried before (what little you did say), please I urge you learn about the Mixed economy in the UK. I want to learn about it first before you respond to this.

I know I said I wouldn't respond to any further

Why do you then? Lack of will power? I shouldn’t expect a response to this then?

blah

Nice, attempt there jps.

This argument started with me saying that I think the borders should be opened and you attacking my statement. Now you are apparently arguing against your own position by saying we should not close the borders.

No what I took issue was this:


Third world countries are encouraged to have oppressive labor practices. In many cases they'd be better off without entering the global market.


Which is advocating closed borders, you did not start off sir with "open borders" I will ask you not to lie again.

Perhaps you ran out of arguments for your position, and decided to switch sides.

LOL!

Goods can still be made around the world, just under reasonable labor laws.

Who the hell is going to be able to afford them?

I've already explained why this is not the case.

Was that you're infamous "yes" answer that solves all the problems? You haven't shown me anything to persuade me to even consider what you are saying. I want to see some stats to show what you are saying please.

You, from the posts I've read, have not been reading my posts and therefore are in a poor position to pass judgement.

I have read them, and nothing but redundancy has come of it. Eventually yes I did get sick and tired of reading the same unsupported and generalized positions over an over again.

Your suggestion is a list of countries?

I can clearly see you are very limited, ADD? ADHD? Think, countries, economies...you cannot connect dots.

http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~lthomas/ritalin.gif

Perhaps you should have read it before responding.

I did and the only thing that wasn't redundant was those questions. The other things I alluded to before. When you rephrase the same arguments over and over, ignoring the flaws pointed out, the response will inevitably be similiar. The fact that you having stated that my post was only questions, you still did not answer them, is revealing.


Of course it is of relevance, if x states HQ is in Bermuda what can y state do against it? It would be unfair trade practice if it slapped sanctions on a foreign company who just happens to sell in the US. The state my geo-centric friend you keep on reverting to is the US, as if it were the world. Look at a atlas please...maybe then you can understand what globalization means. I've already explained how corporations can be controlled internationally. You continue to respond to arguments I didn't make. Its a good debate tactic if you're assertions can't be supported I suppose.




I know, what you want is for them to increase labour standards. Forcing it down their throats, that doesn't seem like "freedom" to me, does it to you? Aren't you being a hypocrite here? So you think there should be no labor standards at all? Any standard has to be pushed down corporations throats as standards hurt their profits. I'm more interested in the freedom of individuals than that of corporations.



You have proposed nothing, all you have been saying is overly generalized, statements, and one word answers like "yes". There is nothing you have said that hasn't been tried before (what little you did say), please I urge you learn about the Mixed economy in the UK. I want to learn about it first before you respond to this.
I've clearly outlined my approach and supported it countering every argument you brought up(often repeatedly). The fact that you are now abandoning debate and saying things like this doesn't change that.


I know I said I wouldn't respond to any further

Why do you then? Lack of will power? I shouldn’t expect a response to this then?

blah

Nice, attempt there jps.
I felt it might be useful to you in further debates, but I can see it went right over your head. You should really consider taking a logic course.

This argument started with me saying that I think the borders should be opened and you attacking my statement. Now you are apparently arguing against your own position by saying we should not close the borders.


No what I took issue was this:



Which is advocating closed borders, you did not start off sir with "open borders" I will ask you not to lie again.
Look at my first post. I say it explicitly. I'll ask you not to lie again, although given the pattern I can see it will be fruitless. Saying that the way in which the global market currently effects third world countries is worse than their not participating in it is not advocating closed borders, its opposing corporate globalization. People can be free to come and go without corporations being able to.





Goods can still be made around the world, just under reasonable labor laws.

Who the hell is going to be able to afford them?
Obviously if everyone's being paid good wages there will be more people able to buy more products. I've made this abundantly clear I think.


I've already explained why this is not the case.

Was that you're infamous "yes" answer that solves all the problems? You haven't shown me anything to persuade me to even consider what you are saying. I want to see some stats to show what you are saying please.
My argument is not based on statistics and cannot be given that what I'm proposing has not been tried. You're the one who consistently responds to my arugments with insults, irrelevant statistics, and debate of seeming different topics. I've already responded to this at least once before, and dont' feel like doing it again.

I'm not psychic, I'm not going to make a guess at what you're trying to propose with your list of countries. A proposal would need to contain full sentences.
However at this point don't bother because I'm done with you, much of this debate has been spent with me responding to the same arguments over and over, and going in circles, which I have no desire to do further.
Your last posts declaring that I haven't made any arguments while offering no response to the arguments that are there unchallenged for anyone to see does not change the fact that you have proved unable to respond to them.

Of course they should be deported. If our government placed Mexicans on notice that persons entering the US illegally WILL be shot, it would resolve the whole matter in a day. Unfortunately, no President of either party has had the guts to simply guard our borders! Let's place the military on that border, and tell them that if it moves, shoot it. Simple, cheap and very effective.
what military? Ours? No way

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/iraq/1040.html

Yes I think they should be deported.

Personally I have a bigger problem with white trash scumbags who already live here (we call them Chavs).
They invariably live off state welfare benefits, and petty crime - The sort of people who would laugh in your face if you ever suggested that they should make a contribution to the country where they live - we're stuck with these fuckers, at least you can deport an immigrant.

I say we send them away and bring in some motivated immigrants.

Personally I have a bigger problem with white trash scumbags who already live here (we call them Chavs).
They invariably live off state welfare benefits, and petty crime - The sort of people who would laugh in your face if you ever suggested that they should make a contribution to the country where they live - we're stuck with these fuckers, at least you can deport an immigrant.

I say we send them away and bring in some motivated immigrants.


But this is white people's land, if you didn't want to come into contact with chav scum you shouldn't have come here. It's karma at work isn't it?

It's like a white person emigrating to Afghanistan, and then complaining about the turban wearing, Taliban supporting, Afghani lower class who spend all day cultivating heroine poppies and shooting their AK47's into the air. Or Thavs as I prefer to call them; Turban Headed And Violent.

Why can't these goddamn Thavs get an education and do something useful?

Anyway, don't be so elitist in future.

But this is white people's land,

Not exactly - we have a culture of immigration going back millenia (I'm a 30th generation viking immigrant) - and not exclusively white folks.
But does that mean white immigrants are OK?



It's like a white person emigrating to Afghanistan, and then complaining about the turban wearing, Taliban supporting, Afghani lower class who spend all day cultivating heroin poppies and shooting their AK47's into the air. Or Thavs as I prefer to call them; Turban Headed And Violent.


Ha Ha Ha! - and you are calling ME elitist :D

Not exactly - we have a culture of immigration going back millenia (I'm a 30th generation viking immigrant)

:confused:

I assume your mother is Scandinavian.


But does that mean white immigrants are OK?

Any immigrants are O.K.in small doses.

Any immigrants are O.K.in small doses.


race traitor
reform or your days are numbered!

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6958/sargent20120205de7.jpg

these tards were thinking along the same lines

1775 - "Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man's advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. Where are the Delewares? They have been reduced to a mere shadow of their former greatness. We had hoped that the white men would not be willing to travel beyond the mountains. Now that hope is gone. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Tsalagi (Cherokee) land. They wish to have that usurpation sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Tsalagi (Cherokees). New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Tsalagi (Cherokees) and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of the Ani Yvwiya, The Real People, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the miserable Tsalagi (Cherokees), the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than to submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will hold our land."

- Chief Dragging Canoe, Chickamauga Tsalagi (Cherokee)

what a retard
whitey, riddled with disease, breeding like rabbits, was more than a match for them

1838 - All Indians in Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama "removed". Dragging Canoe's lands are racially cleansed of his and all other native people

Just to throw another monkey in the wrench ....

Property is robbery.

LOL.

See how far you get with this garbage...

Workers of the World Unite, Tiassa!

a bit of a side note
instance of govts invoking eminent domain is on the rise
your home aint your castle
its walmart's

Yes I think they should be deported.

Then who is going to pick the strawberries and mow the lawn?

Also, it is kind of hard to remove 10+ million people...

Then who is going to pick the strawberries and mow the lawn?

Also, it is kind of hard to remove 10+ million people...

Just because it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Well as a free market conservative, I can't support any immigration controls.

Goods, labour and services should be able to move freely without interference from government. The market should decide where it gets its labour from and what it pays for it not government.
Any kind of immigration control for economic reasons is protectionism - protectionism is the kind of socialism associated with the radical left.

Any other reasons for immigration control are due to race - and I'm not racist.