Immigration Crisis or an Economic Opportunity?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Michael, Oct 6, 2015.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I'll stand by my statement. As a matter of fact, I can see it happening in Japan. The difference is Japanese are quite xenophobic. So, they'd rather invent robots and go without to pay for their past sins. Or, I should say, the sins of their fathers.

    Agree (particularly in bringing in labor to compete with those Germans who have lower than average IQ and need to find manual labor).

    An as for increased productivity, yes, when they actually "invested" capital.

    When Municipal Bonds are sold to build a football stadium, which is built, and then enjoyed, and then torn down and the Bonds repaid by people who never even heard of such a stadium, let alone used it, is that an "investment" in your book? That's a little different than an individual or group of individuals saving their money, buying or building machines that makes goods - such as cars. Those "Industrialists" directed resources that lifted nations out of poverty. The former just left their grandkids with their bills because they wanted a free stadium, or free education or free healthcare. Germans did enjoy the fruits of their capital investments.... AND THEN SOME. And that 'some' requires Germany be destroyed. It's how it works. Either that, or the system must come to an end, and far too many people are emotionally T-Bonded to superstitious-like belief in the State.

    Which is worse I wonder? The belief in the State or in Gods? One would think society would benefit from a small superstitious belief (Sunday Xian) and a limited government. Oh, but then where'd we'd get all the free-shit come from? How could a politician get elected if not 'redistributing' / taxing / taking from one and giving to a another? And who better to take from than the unborn?

    So, it's either B.Sanders with his promises of free K-14 and free healthcare or the Pope with promises of an afterlife.

    They do not use free-market derived money, they use fiat currency based on debt obligations. If you want to consider debt, as capital, and borrowing more than you could ever hope to repay, as "investing capital savings", be my guess. But, they are not the same thing.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And I will stand by my observation that it is in conflict with observed demographic fact. The people who quit having children were those who could best, not least, afford them.

    Nevertheless, their economies are market capitalist, not socialist. Both of them.
    In making your choice, notice that Sanders is able to provide working examples of his recommendations for you to check out, and perfectly sound methods of paying for them - that stuff you call "free" is of course quite expensive, so the method of paying for it is important.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    So they were led to believe (by their income - which was paid in fiat currency and greatly distorted from object reality).

    Many people who can afford to have children can do so because they didn't. Instead they focused on their careers (and played their role as tax chattel). This type of person often projects far into the future when making decisions in life (like whether or not to have children). Likewise, many of welfare are on welfare because they do not manage risk well, can see past tomorrow (if) and only have children for the baby bonus. Literally, many people will have children solely as a means of buying a TV. Another reason why Socialism sucks. Progressive being one of the worst.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And they were correct. They were the ones who could easily afford children.
    We are talking about the people who best could have afforded to have children, at any time in their lives.

    It would have saved them much of the burden of being tax chattel, for example - the many tax breaks for having children are especially beneficial to those who can best afford children in the first place.

    Those are the ones who quit having children. Your little fantasy scene of people not being able to afford children because they had to pay taxes for two generations of welfare recipients is in conflict with demographic fact.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2016
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Not and retire with benefits - that belief only came about due to a State and Central Bank distorted price mechanism. Their fiat currency lied to them.

    But sure, they could afford not to have kids - even the poor can afford NOT to have kids. ANYONE can afford NOT to have kids. But they should not be led to believe they will ever be allowed to retire. Someone has to do the work. How many would have had children had they known they would ONLY be allowed to retire if they had a family? How many would have made different behavior decisions in their early lives?

    Well, now they need people. Their Progressive Central Bank has destroyed their society yet again. Within a generation. How pathetic. Only this time, there's no going back. They're done for.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Pay attention: these were the people who could easily afford to have children. Your assertion that the impoverishment of paying for multiple generations caused people to quit having babies is in conflict with demographic fact (as well as the obvious arithmetic of the actual level of taxes involved, and the amount left over for these well off, middle class and up, people).

    Some of them could even afford to have children and then "retire" when they got old - an unimaginable luxury for most of human history.
    Machines - invested productivity, not spent on children - do the work. Before that, no one in an agricultural society could expect to retire "with benefits" except those who could afford servants and slaves.

    Given the productivity increases generated by the invested savings, which also generated the extended unproductive childhood of modern industrial society, the people who didn't have kids have ended up funding the retirements of of those who did. But that doesn't mean the people who had kids were selfish and shortsighted mooches on their neighbors - there was a social contract, established and enforced via government, whereby everybody paid for all the kids.

    No they don't. Many of them want people, and they want them for cheap, as the rich have always wanted servants but not wanted to pay much, but they can get along perfectly well without them.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2016
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    How could they 'afford'? By what measure?

    Oh, yes, they had earned a number of Central Banker fiat-currency units backed by State violence. This was their measure. Well, that measure was a lie. It presented them with a distorted view of what was real. Entire generations of productive Germans (and Swede's) planned their entire lives around this distorted measurement.

    Now, pay attention: ANYONE born in Germany or Sweden can easily afford to have children (for now). This is why so many economic migrants bypass safe countries (which by law they are supposed to stop at if they are truly a refugee) and continue north. Then there's the predilection of Germans and Swedes. Many of those who are the wealthiest, made their extra wealth specifically by forgoing a family. Who knows? Had they a sound money, perhaps they'd of 'afforded' both their over-ridding ambitions as well as to have a family? Or perhaps they'd have realized the true cost of not having a family to look after them in their old age. They could have changed the entire course of their lives. But they didn't. No can know why so many Germans and Japanese do not have families. Many Japanese I speak to, they say they want a family, but they don't have time because they work a lot. Sure, those Japanese who don't worry about tomorrow - they have kids and deal with it. But many Japanese (and probably northern people in general, genetically) worry about tomorrow. Or they worry they'll not have enough time to dedicate to parenting. Some just don't want a family.

    Here's the key: Germans and Swede's cannot afford NOT to have children AND expect to have the lifestyle they think they deserve in retirement. THAT is not physically possible. Now, I have no problem with people NOT having a family. As a matter of fact, many shouldn't have a family because they suck at parenting. Both wealthy and 'poor'. But the costs should be clear. Those costs are not clear. They are distorted by a Progressive Central Bank and a culture of Government largess vis-a-vie Democratic Socialism.

    In any event, in a sound monetary system this information is transmitted through sound-money to the people using it in one form or another. Perhaps Bonds go through the roof making it difficult to sell or perhaps they go through the floor, losing much of their value. Perhaps the purchasing power of the currency alters concurrently. Perhaps retirement insurance companies go bust as it becomes evident they cannot meet their obligations. Whatever it is, in a free-market, as information about the future changes, it affect the monetary system in a manner that best reflects reality. But NOT with a Government-fiat currency. Then it's not a particularly poorly run retirement plan being sold by a private company (that goes bust) - it's the entire nation that is destroyed. Often accompanied with a lot of scapegoating (see: Jews) and War (see: WWII).

    Why is this important - because Central Banking enabled Socialism (a form of Authoritarian Statism) is destroying Europe AGAIN. Only this time, for good. There will be no 'Europe' in the Classical sense. There'll be a "New" Europe. It'll look like the USA. It'll have all the problems as the USA. And Europeans will do everything we do - for the exact same reasons. Including ending many of their Progressive Socialistic Welfare Programs . So, let's watch as objective reality catches up with Germany and Sweden. And, through empiricism, you can lean the true 'affordability' of Progressive "Democratic" Socialism.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    By the accumulation of resources in their stash, due to the large surplus of income they enjoyed above their basic needs for decades on end.
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Many Germans plan on the State caring for them in their old age - picking up all of their medical bills along the way.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's easier for Germans - their medical bills are less than half the US norm. But you were talking about being able to afford children, remember?

    That's also easier for Germans, btw - not only is the medical cheaper by far, but they have things like good transportation systems etc. Plus they get paid a little better, at least the working classes do. But as with so many others, the easier it is to afford children the fewer they have.
  14. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Don't worry, as major areas of German cities turn into Government crack-slums that resemble ours; as their welfare systems are scammed into bankruptcy in a manner similar to the ways ours are, replete with generational scammers who make a living out of pumping out children; as their medical systems are overwhelmed with fraudsters scamming the system, malpractice, and incompetence; as they shift more money into their police State - well, at such at time, they'll implement solutions identical to ours, for the same reasons. At that time, they'll be just like us (actually, they'll be much worse due to the demographics, but then again, maybe we will be too). My guess is, they'll even gain the right to own firearms.

    "Germany" will be the price they pay for Progressive Socialism. Just as we are paying. Just as all Socialistic countries pay - eventually. You don't have to wonder IF. It IS happening and WILL continue to unfold.

    Secondly, ANYONE in Germany right now can afford children if they so choose to have them.

    The question is why don't those Germans whom you think can 'easily afford' to have children - have them? Well, did you ever stop to think they do not think they can "afford" to have children? The type of person who is successful - often projects for into the future, and will worry they cannot really afford a family. In first world societies these people are financially rewarded (often correlating to high IQ individuals). Many must plan for years, even decades long studies and finally are financially rewarded for their efforts - often these people must delay starting a family. Many won't even start a proper job until their 30s (in large part thanks to Progressive Government Regulations as to who can and cannot do what, where, when and with whom). In the past, a man could earn enough to pay for a family of 5. They still could, but the State is milking them of enough tax to raise their family of 5 and 5 other families of 5 who don't work - a couple of which are dead and gone but the debts are still being repaid. I suppose if you're a Bankster, life is good, not so good down on the farm where both the father and mother have to work and STILL cannot (even though you think they can) afford to easily start a family. Other's don't want children because they THINK the State is going to be there for them - it's not going to be. They'd have settled down and started a family had they known better - which is one function money could have provided. Finally, sure, some people don't want kids - good, they shouldn't have any.

    There is only one peaceful solution for you Germany: Completely END the Welfare State. It's either that, or bye bye Germany.

    The question is: WHY isn't this information being carried IN their money? They should have been signaled LONG AGO that not having children would result in the destruction of their progressive socialistic institutions. Well, the reason is simple: They don't use sound money. They use fiat currency. Their fiat currency was distorted in a manner that tricked them into be good little productive tax chattel without any foreknowledge of their impending doom. Like driving and night with the headlights off staring at the radio and enjoying the music/State propaganda.

    As an aside, Japan has very old, very well maintained, infrastructure. We can have this too - at such a time when it's safe for 6 year old children to walk through any city in the USA, get on a train, take it 30 - 40 minutes into another city, and walk to school unaccompanied. I mean, like Progressivism - it's all theoretically possible (to use the initiation of violence for the good of society). But, I don't suggest attempting to do so with your own children. Until then, we are not going to EVER live in such a society.

    We are not them.
    They are not us (though Germany and "New" Sweden will soon be).
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    You have to vilify them in their future form because they are doing just fine now. It may well be that an advanced industrial society can't survive the end of the age of cheap oil, but Germany is better prepared than most. Certainly a huge economy can afford the small percentage of people that exploit any welfare system.
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Except they are not doing just fine right now. I'm simply pointing out the reasons for why: unsound money via a progressive central bank and socialistic government. The bills are coming due - and they're running out of tax chattel to milk. And get this: it's not that they don't have enough 'tax'. It's not that they don't have enough pieces of paper / fiat currency units. THAT isn't their problem. They can make as many little pieces of paper as they so wish. "Tax" isn't the solution. The solution is goods and services.

    Japan is facing these exact same problems. Again, in the 1980s it was a common saying in China: If you want to see a Communist country, go to Japan. IOWs, socialism didn't appear to be working in China, but for some odd reason, was in Japan. Except - it wasn't working. What was working was relatively free-market economy. However, this machine (to use an analogy) was switched from capital investment with real money to running on fiat currency. It deviated, little by little, off course. Even in Japan, at that time, they thought they had it all figured out. Healthcare, education, research and development - there was nothing they couldn't do, and do better.

    And then it ended - to a degree. Japan Inc didn't end. The illusion ended. Now most young people accept their fate: there will be no retirement for them. They'll work until the day they die repaying for the 1980s governmental largess. But, they have one thing going for them, a specific type of monoculture, probably selected for across 60,000 years of northern Siberian tundra. It's shaped their eyes, their brains, and their culture. So, assuming they don't become a fragmented multicultural society, like ours, the old will die off and the country will probably start the entire cycle all over again. With the same results.

    Oil allowed us to indulge ourselves in over population and extremely asinine progressive socialistic institutions. However, each century thinks of themselves as 'advanced'. With the exception of the fall of Rome, we've never really stopped advancing. Maybe the end of cheap energy will change the way we advance, but it won't halt the advancement itself. Not until the sun itself burns out - and that's a long time from now.

    Oh, sure, I agree, I do think Germany could have struggled onward even with a distorted monetary system (which probably would have collapsed and been replaced) - as a Germanic nation. I mean come on, they were firebombed into oblivion during WWII and easily survived the war to rebuild and again, become the dominant force in Europe. But, that's not their path forward.

    Bye bye Germany (and Sweden), it was nice knowing you. And just remember, you're making a fantastic example of yourselves. Oh, I mean "New" Sweden. LOL

    Note: There is only one peaceful solution, a total END to the Welfare State. Together with sound money, laws that protect private property and uphold contract, and free-markets. Or, as we say: Welcome To America

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Whatever delusions the German people operate under are not the matter at hand. The matter at hand was your claim that people had been choosing not to have children because the cost of paying welfare for two generations of mooches had actually impoverished them - they could no longer afford to have children. That claim is in conflict with demographic fact. (And economic fact - no one keeping the books of the ordinary German household would find shortage of money severe enough to proscribe children, if desired.)
    If the problem is that German people have fallen victim to delusions of poverty, as you describe, then it's hard to see how ending the foundations of their current prosperity and enviably peaceful civilization would help.
    The Japanese yen was established as a fiat currency, issued by the Central Bank of Japan, in 1882. The economy of Japan has been structured as a market capitalism since 1882, and in its current form (without feudal structure built in) since 1949. Their economic stagnation fits the Keynesian model of a liquidity trap, and was caused by the standard and familiar banking abuses that have attended failure to closely regulate capitalist banking (in particular, to separate investment banking from retail banking) everywhere.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, but reconciling career with family is indeed one major reported reason as to why Germans choose not to have children. The fact is, it requires both parents to work to "afford" all the fiat currency units needed to provide all the free-shit the German State keeps on tap. A second reason why Germans don't have kids is because early daycare is considered to be inappropriate. "Raven" mothers they're called. But get this. IT IS. It is NOT good for children to be separated from their mothers before the age of 4. A third reason is father's at home - this is frowned upon.

    So, here's my question: Why WAS it possible for a single father working in 1960 to afford all the then modern white-goods, cars, television, a house and etc... and now, 70 years later with 7 decades of productive innovation - this is no longer possible? Now it requires both parents to work. And this is with China acting as a next to free factory producing many of the goods at a cost of next to nothing.

    I'll give you a hint: Givermint

    Also, sure, there are plenty of Germany who don't want to start a family. And why should they. Magic Giver-mint is going to magically take care of them in the future (although it's not, though along the way it'll import 10s of millions of low skilled functional illiterates hoping they make up the tax chattel base needed to pay for all the free shit [hint: they won't]).

    Again, the problem is: Givermint

    How does Givernmint get away with it? Hint #3: Progressive Central Banking

    Via Spiegel
    Conrad Adenauer -- Germany's post-World War II chancellor -- once famously quipped that the government didn't need to offer lavish benefits for families because "Germans will always have children." He was dead wrong. Currently, one-third of German women are childless. It's the highest rate of childlessness in the world. Were it not for the influx of foreigners and longer life spans, Germans -- like many Europeans -- would be a dying breed.


    Much like how progressive "democrapic" socialism destroyed the black family via minimum wage laws and it's solution: generational welfare, the German and Swedish State's are indeed destroying their respective societies. AND by are, I mean ARE. Right now. In real time. Only the State has society destroying power - and that's exactly what it does. And this time, in Europe, it's for good. Bye Bye Germany.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    No one knows if a free market would have developed paper money - probably, but there'd be (like cars, phones, computers, fast food, etc....) more than one, and it would be superseded by something better.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Reconciling family with career is hardly the same as facing impoverishment too severe to allow children. It is a choice - that's good, I thought? Meanwhile, the free-shit doesn't cost that much. It's a deduction from the paycheck, and there's plenty left over in Germany - the paychecks are fat ones, especially for the class of people that quit having children.
    So you've switched from Germany to America, without notice (things weren't yet so nice, in 1960 Germany). You've also glitched the arithmetic - it's less than 60 years later.

    Your question has one obvious answer: Nixon's heir Reagan. He broke the unions, deregulated the banks and savings&loans where most such men got their mortgages etc, doubled the payroll taxes to build up a surplus, and damaged the economy in running up huge government deficits by cutting taxes on rich people while squandering the country's capital on military bs; remember?

    And another obvious factor: You meant married, white father. For black men in 1960, that term "white-goods" was no misnomer.

    And a third - the deregulated and untaxed wealthy, thus enabled, moved the production part of the "productive innovation" out of the country, which had probably been the purpose of Reaganomics all along.

    How many such historical circumstances do you need to be reminded of?

    And there's some current circumstances to consider: the machine shop down the street from me pays 50 - 60k per year to its floor level employees, at least 40k to start, which is plenty of money with which to purchase and maintain one 150k house, buy one 20k car, and support a wife and family with all the modern and more expensive toys (TV, cell phones, etc). That's better than median for 1960, from a completely ordinary bluecollar job. To the extent that these jobs haven't left the country, they can work just like jobs used to. Funny, that.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Irrelevant. You were blaming the recent problems in Japan on its recent conversion to fiat currency. Japan has had a fiat currency issued by a Central Bank almost as long as Sweden has - remember when you picked the decade of Sweden's conversion to government owned central banking and fiat currency as the origin decade of their prosperity? You do have a remarkable knack for picking these historical examples.
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I didn't use the word impoverishment. LOL Strawman much? It's not hard to look up the studies on why Germans are not having children. When asked, those are some of the main reasons. Germans who can afford to have a family (your words) are the type of people who don't feel they can do so adequately. Many can, specifically because they've gone into careers by forgoing having a family! Many wouldn't have had those careers had they instead dedicated their time to raising a proper family. Sure, for the type of person who doesn't give a shit about their children's quality of life, they have many kids - it's actually a great way for them to make a living.

    It's almost 2020 - close enough.

    I didn't mistake Germany for the USA. However, I'll tack on 5 years, how's that?

    You're going to blame Reagan for why Germans and Japanese had too many and now don't have enough children to 'afford' their respective welfare States at the expected benefit levels? Are you serious?

    I do agree with a portion of what you had to say: Our Government hyper-regulated fiat currency unit peddling banks play a HUGE role in why there are economic bubbles - including in population demographics. They do this on purpose. It's called Progressive Banking. The first time they tried it in the USA we had the Great Depression, WWII and nuked Japan. But don't worry, this system will, like all other fiat currency systems, come to an end. We will return to sound money, laws that protect private property and unhold contract and a free-market society. Whether you like it or not. But first, we will become a Progressive Socialist Paradise - or so I'd guess.

    If such is the case, then you're in luck. What a great time to be alive. Free Givernmint healthcare, schools, welfare, police state keeping you safe and doing all benevolent redistribution for us

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    let's see if the economic immigrants can produce all that free-shit everyone wants. Hahahaha....

    See? That's the nice thing about Empiricism. We WILL find out which one of us is right. And it's not going to take 60 more years, probably more like 15.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2016
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Oh, and as an aside.
    RE: Japan

    The invisible hand of Adam Smith is working out quite well for many young Japanese. See, Japanese don't trust GiverMint, nor their central bank (they do believe in their fiat currency to a degree and keep it in safes in their homes though). Anyway, because those idiotic Japanese are xenophobic (well, actually all of Asia), they don't want a "New" Japan and they're not letting in Rapeugees. Not so good for businesses looking for workers, but it's really good for laborers with skills. Their wages are going up relative to the low inflation *GAAAASP*.

    Japan does have a high skilled immigration though. Most leave as they can't adapt to the monoculture - some don't.

Share This Page