You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Italian Bonds
- Thread starter dealmaker
- Start date
True in the short run at least, where a rapid influx of immigrants adds costs and social problems. In the long run, as the data shows, stepped up immigration can add tremendously to productivity and cultural value. Surprisingly, there is some new data suggesting the long range gains are greater with a more egalitarian immigration policy than with a merit based policy. This seems counter intuitive.Well if they expect Italy to be at the forefront taking in all those migrants that adds nothing to productivity or cultural value then EU
Last edited:
In a fiat money regime, what is important over the long run is that the amount of fiat money actually in circulation and available for paying taxes and purchasing goods and services is kept in balance with productivity and taxes. A country or a confederation of nations with the same fiat currency can carry deficits and expand them forever so long as they adhere to this principle. Some decisions may make future adherence difficult. Undesirable rates of inflation are then the likely outcome. Productivity is the critical factor, Marx recognized this, and we must not forget it.
The same basic principle applies even in commodity based money regimes, but the mechanism for maintaining a balance between money , productivity and taxes is different. Fiat money, when properly manged is superior.
Last edited:
True in the short run at least, where a rapid influx of immigrants adds costs and social problems. In the long run, as the data shows, stepped up immigration can add tremendously to productivity and cultural value. Surprisingly, there is some new data suggesting the long range gains are greater with a more egalitarian immigration policy than with a merit based policy. This seems counter intuitive.
The potential gains from "egalitarian" immigration policy in the long run is dependent on many factors, quality and attitudes of the incoming immigrants, the execution quality and the overall design quality of the immigration policy itself, the capacity (both geographical and resource) of the host country, and lastly the demand for immigration in the first place. These are all very important determinants of whether the influx of immigrants would benefit the host country or not. All of the current data about immigration are all based on countries other than Europe because Europe never had any immigration on a massive scale. And yet Europe and the current situation in Europe right now are vastly different from the other countries and their situation at the time that these data are based on so one cannot deduce the success of the immigration on Europe based on these data.
To sum it up in one sentence: These data do not apply to the current European situation and I don't think it's wise for Europe to spend all those money and those resources to confirm that.
By and large I agree with what you mention would be determining criteria.. The "demand for immigration in the first place " would be perhaps mostly a reflection of our perceptions rather than of actual realities.The potential gains from "egalitarian" immigration policy in the long run is dependent on many factors, quality and attitudes of the incoming immigrants, the execution quality and the overall design quality of the immigration policy itself, the capacity (both geographical and resource) of the host country, and lastly the demand for immigration in the first place. These are all very important determinants of whether the influx of immigrants would benefit the host country or not. All of the current data about immigration are all based on countries other than Europe because Europe never had any immigration on a massive scale. And yet Europe and the current situation in Europe right now are vastly different from the other countries and their situation at the time that these data are based on so one cannot deduce the success of the immigration on Europe based on these data.
To sum it up in one sentence: These data do not apply to the current European situation and I don't think it's wise for Europe to spend all those money and those resources to confirm that.
Europe has experienced other immigration in recent memory, perhaps not on a massive scale, but certainly on a large scale from influx of Eastern Europeans following Perestroika and the fall of the Soviet Union. I have seen how those from the former communist bloc settled in their own enclaves in cities like Vienna. Was this by preference? I suspect it was partly an economic necessity that led them to be concentrated in a less affluent sector of the city, but I can't help believe it was also because the Austrians, who have a reputation for xenophobia, perhaps undeserved, did not go out of their way to make them feel welcome. We'd be better off if we stopped to think before we conclude that immigrants, on average, are in anyway inherently inferior. It seems our normal response is simply to be driven by our inborn vanity, greed, and instinct.
By and large I agree with what you mention would be determining criteria.. The "demand for immigration in the first place " would be perhaps mostly a reflection of our perceptions rather than of actual realities.
No it is the illusion of perception that is actually skewing the actual realities on this. Europe does NOT need immigration. Immigration yes could help in some ways in increasing productivity and lower production cost and etc. but it is not the only way. Many countries like Japan who has advanced economies like many of the European countries do not use immigration as a solution to its problem of negative population growth and aging population that is actually even more severe than Europe and it does NOT look into immigration as the solution. The need to increase productivity can easily be met by outsourcing, investing in less developed economies, and/or automation technology, all choices far more efficient and economical than immigration.
Europe has experienced other immigration in recent memory, perhaps not on a massive scale, but certainly on a large scale from influx of Eastern Europeans following Perestroika and the fall of the Soviet Union. I have seen how those from the former communist bloc settled in their own enclaves in cities like Vienna. Was this by preference? I suspect it was partly an economic necessity that led them to be concentrated in a less affluent sector of the city, but I can't help believe it was also because the Austrians, who have a reputation for xenophobia, perhaps undeserved, did not go out of their way to make them feel welcome. We'd be better off if we stopped to think before we conclude that immigrants, on average, are in anyway inherently inferior. It seems our normal response is simply to be driven by our inborn vanity, greed, and instinct.
Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Immigrants should be those who have been invited by the host country to enter, not by forcing themselves in at the border with the threat of accusing the host countries of being inhumane if denied entry. Every single immigrants' life at the new adopted country is hard because there is a lot to learn, to earn, to acquire, to adapt, nothing to do with the immigrants being "inferior" or "superior", just how the reality is. It would be nice if the host country can extend a helping hand to help them settle but this shouldn't be taken for granted. And just because they didn't get to live in million-dollar apartments on Champs-Elysées doesn't mean the host country should feel guilty, feeling "inborn vanity, greed, and instinct". Wealth is something that should be earned, not given, no matter where one is, whether it's in his/her native country or in the new adoptive country.
I like this so long as one keeps in mind what "earned" should mean, and the definition of "earned" is not overly broad, "Behind every great fortune lies a crime." -- Honoré de BalzacWealth is something that should be earned, not given,
I like this so long as one keeps in mind what "earned" should mean, and the definition of "earned" is not overly broad, "Behind every great fortune lies a crime." -- Honoré de Balzac
Well if they commit any crimes that's against the host country laws, then it's deportation. The problem is the population growth is so low in Europe that you don't even have enough people to enforce the law and deport those migrants should they commit any crimes; you actually have to hire immigrants as police to enforce the law and deport other immigrants. LOL. This is another reason WHY immigration is such a bad idea. Japan is not doing it and neither should Europe.
I have no side in this but you make the erroneous assumption of just because Japan hasn't, that they won't. Be careful of absolutes.Many countries like Japan who has advanced economies like many of the European countries do not use immigration as a solution to its problem of negative population growth and aging population that is actually even more severe than Europe and it does NOT look into immigration as the solution.