The Toronto Story could Be Huge (Up Mahrams Ass)

[spect8or]

Quote from Ricter:

Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, if capital is free to employ cheaper labor abroad, then labor should be free to seek higher capital abroad. You see, if we stand for fairness now, we have a hope of expecting it in the future, when the inevitable tide of human migration has put the "shoe on the other foot". If we don't stand for fairness, there is no hope of that. That's why the principles that America was founded on are so important, more than life itself.

Do you realize that you're essentially saying "we must have immigration otherwise immigration is going to hurt us"? Illogical.

Anyway, I take it you've finally agreed that labor and capital movement aren't different sides of the same coin? That you can one without the other?

Now, the supposed 'fairness' issue. What, pray tell, is 'unfair' about a system in which capital can move but people can't? If all nations are free to move their capital around, then that, by any reasonable definition, is a fair system. It would be one thing if the rich countries maintained that only their capital was free to move, but poor countries' couldn't; that would be clearly unfair. But that isn't the set of circumstances that prevails. I think the least you could do is agree that this is another way of framing the issue, one on which reasonable people might disagree with, rather than simply maintaing that yours is the only legitimate way to look at it.

And what does that even mean, people should be 'free to seek higher capital'? Unlimited immigration? Open borders? As long as country A invests even $1 into country B, an unlimited number of country A's citizens should be free to move to country B? Or would you put limits on this movement? I just want to know where you stand.

You see, if we stand for fairness now, we have a hope of expecting it in the future, when the inevitable tide of human migration has put the "shoe on the other foot".

Do you honestly think there's nothing we can do stop people coming to our countries? I find that incredible. I find it defeatist, irresponsible, even traitorous; certainly contemptible.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from spect8or:

Do you realize that you're essentially saying "we must have immigration otherwise immigration is going to hurt us"? Illogical.

What I'm saying is more like, "we must have fairness otherwise immigrants (and natives) are going to hurt us".

Quote from spect8or:


Anyway, I take it you've finally agreed that labor and capital movement aren't different sides of the same coin? That you can [have] one without the other?

I suppose you could, in theory. That's what many owners of capital would prefer methinks. But in the real world, both sides of this coin "attract" each other. They are the same process, viewed from different angles.

Quote from spect8or:


Now, the supposed 'fairness' issue. What, pray tell, is 'unfair' about a system in which capital can move but people can't? If all nations are free to move their capital around, then that, by any reasonable definition, is a fair system. It would be one thing if the rich countries maintained that only their capital was free to move, but poor countries' couldn't; that would be clearly unfair.

What's unfair is that rich countries say they can move their capital at will, seeking the cheapest labor, thereby maximizing profit to themselves, but that the cheap labor has to stay put and "make do". Fair then would be capital staying home and "making do".

Quote from spect8or:

But that isn't the set of circumstances that prevails. I think the least you could do is agree that this is another way of framing the issue, one on which reasonable people might disagree with, rather than simply maintaing that yours is the only legitimate way to look at it.

On that I must agree.

Quote from spect8or:


And what does that even mean, people should be 'free to seek higher capital'? Unlimited immigration? Open borders? As long as country A invests even $1 into country B, an unlimited number of country A's citizens should be free to move to country B? Or would you put limits on this movement? I just want to know where you stand.

On just a moment's thought, I think unlimited immigration might be the fastest way to end immigration. Very soon the benefits of moving (not taking into account environmental catastrophes) would equal the costs and people would stay put. But as long as there are "haves" and "have nots", particularly if the difference between them is immense, there will continue to be apes raiding the bigger piles of bananas.

Quote from spect8or:


Do you honestly think there's nothing we can do stop people coming to our countries? I find that incredible. I find it defeatist, irresponsible, even traitorous; certainly contemptible.

Lol, a belief in hopelessness is hardly traitorous. I believe we can slow immigration, sometimes more sometimes less, but as the mathematician said in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way". If we're going to try we definitely want to know the ROI on it. So far, the U.S., whose business "is business", has in essence said it's not really worth the cost. Sorry, but that's a free market at work.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Ricter:



Lol, a belief in hopelessness is hardly traitorous. I believe we can slow immigration, sometimes more sometimes less, but as the mathematician said in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way". If we're going to try we definitely want to know the ROI on it. So far, the U.S., whose business "is business", has in essence said it's not really worth the cost. Sorry, but that's a free market at work.

But there have been consistent majorities agreeing that "there is too much immigration". It's not the people who have decided, it's high-minded intellectual and greedy business elites. It's not a free 'free market', it's an oligopoly.

Personally, I'm certain immigration could easily be brought to a halt. Like, if I'm Spain, or Malta (whose position is even more precarious, but whose president, spinelessly recently agreed with you that there's "nothing" that can be done), and there are legions of Africans arriving uninvited on my shores, I simply start sinking their boats. Even if you don't think that would work, if it's your nations survival at stake, why wouldn't you at least try it?

 

[spect8or]

Hello, Ricter? You're not required to reply to a post contradicting your contention, but I do hope that if you don't you'll have the good manners not to simply mindlessly repeat the same thing the next time the topic pops up, as though I'd never addressed your point.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from spect8or:

I simply start sinking their boats.

Impossible. Even if a nation's leader is heartless enough to drown innocent women and children, the nation's citizens- and the rest of the world, would <b>never</b> stand for it.

(Assuming you're talking about a first world nation with a majority of caucasian citizens. When Africans or Arabs act that way- nobody cares.)

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Impossible. Even if a nation's leader is heartless enough to drown innocent women and children, the nation's citizens- and the rest of the world, would <b>never</b> stand for it.

(Assuming you're talking about a first world nation with a majority of caucasian citizens. When Africans or Arabs act that way- nobody cares.)

I wasn't suggesting it as a course of action for today. I was simply answering Ricter's charge that there's nothing that can be done.

Even you agree it's a psychological block that prevents such measures from being taken today, not an actual, functional impossibility.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from spect8or:

I wasn't suggesting it as a course of action for today. I was simply answering Ricter's charge that there's nothing that can be done.

Even you agree it's a psychological block that prevents such measures from being taken today, not an actual, functional impossibility.

I'll concede your philosophical point, made argument in extremis.

As for taking some time to post, sorry, but I had some trails out in the woods that needed checking on.

 

[gunslinger]

Quote from Ricter:

I'll concede your philosophical point, made argument in extremis.

As for taking some time to post, sorry, but I had some trails out in the woods that needed checking on.

What do you check them for, just curious?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from gunslinger:

What do you check them for, just curious?

I check 'em to make sure the pine smell is still heavy, the birds are chirpin', the cricks are aflowin', and my favorite logs to hold down are still there.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Ricter:

I'll concede your philosophical point, made argument in extremis.

This particular point is so self-evident it doesn't even require concession. No, the point I hoped you'd concede was that America certainly has not voted for continuing immigration. The current immigration policies were instituted by intellectual and business elites; the American masses, as demonstrated in polling, reject mass immigration (illegal and legal).