Mortal Monkey on 3/7/2006 at 05:53
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Is it your honest opinion that immigrants necessarily bring down the quality of the host country when they immigrate? You do realise that your country (and mine, for that matter) is pretty much
entirely made up of immigrants?
And did you bring down the quality of the native americans country with your immigration?
Agent Monkeysee on 3/7/2006 at 19:31
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
There is no good "too important" for the market.
You're right, we should privatize the military. And the police. And Congress. AND YOUR MOM AHAHAHHAHAAHAAHA
TheGreatGodPan on 3/7/2006 at 21:10
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
But the point is that crops can't keep up with the speed of market fluctuations. If there's not enough food being produced and the prices go up it'll still take a long while to get new farms going. While waiting for that to happen you'll have to import your food from other countries. That'll cost dearly.
Markets are a hell of a lot more reactive to changes then governments. Right now our country is (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html) paying farmers not to farm while using subsidies and tariffs to prevent other countries from taking up the slack.
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
Food is vital to the people and therefore to the government. Market is about profits. That's why I will refuse to believe this:
You know what caused the Ukranian famine, which resulted in massive death? The Soviet government. Do you know what saved that government earlier when Lenin's War Communism resulted in plummeting crop yields? Besides foreign aid from the U.S, it was the switch to the New Economic Plan, which allowed farmers small plots to grow food on: small market islands in a sea of socialism. Just because the government SAYS it acts on behalf of "the people" doesn't mean it actually does. Profit arises from doing something beneficial for others. If you get your money by harming others, it is usually through theft, fraud or taxes. Denigrating "profit" is denigrating the efforts of people to serve others. It is saying "You don't know what you really want. I know what you really want and I will provide it".
Agent Monkeysee: The police and military are not as efficient as private entities, but the near universaility of states leaves me doubtful as to the viability of anarchism. Also, my mom was exempt as per clause 13 of the Your Mom Nationalization Act of 1978, and as such is already privatized.
Deep Qantas on 3/7/2006 at 22:38
I wasn't aware that US farms were controlled by a soviet government.
Pyrian on 3/7/2006 at 23:01
Quote:
You know what caused the Ukranian famine, which resulted in massive death? The Soviet government.
Um, most historians I've read posit that that was entirely intentional.
Quote:
Profit arises from doing something beneficial for others. If you get your money by harming others, it is usually through theft, fraud or taxes.
Since theft and fraud can both be reported as profit, you've resorted to re-defining terms to make your point.
BEAR on 4/7/2006 at 00:06
Quote Posted by Convict
America and the EU (Japan?) should perhaps be importing much more of their food from countries that can produce it more efficiently - e.g. Australia and developing countries. Indeed, many economists attribute problems of the 3rd and 2nd world to these very subsidies Americans and European (inefficient) farmers get.
Yeah, that would be great. Lets let other countries grow all of our food, I dont see how
that can backfire!
SD on 4/7/2006 at 00:29
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
And did you bring down the quality of the native americans country with your immigration?
I didn't immigrate anywhere :(
Quote Posted by BEAR
Yeah, that would be great. Lets let other countries grow all of our food, I dont see how
that can backfire!
Indeed. Not only is it a typically daft suggestion from Convict purely on a supply control basis, it'd also be very bad for the environment. Food that has to travel thousands of miles to get to your plate creates a huge amount of pollution.
Microwave Oven on 4/7/2006 at 01:08
I think the whole problem with immigrant labor (and the whole "But Americans don't want the jobs!" argument bullshit) can be more easily understood if we look at it from the econimic flip-side:
Prada and Gucci sell designer handbags. These cost a rather large amount. Counterfeiters sell replicated items for dirt cheap; this is illegal, yet there are people who will still buy them regardless of the legality.
Now, in the example, the authentic manufaturers symbolize legitamate American labor. They cost more, but they are legal. These manufacturers have to compete, unfairly, with the counterfeiters (illegal laborers) who would pass off themselves as the real deal. Buyers of the goods (employers) prefer the knock-off product as it is much less expensive. When caught, the buyers of illegal goods try to excuse themselves by saying, "Where else can I get a handbag? Gucci doesn't want to sell any!" Of course, this excuse is quite false. True, Gucci won't sell, but only because the buyers don't want to pay the advertised price. "Sell for the same price as the knock-off guys, and then we'll buy!" they exclaim. Of course, this is totally unreasonable to ask, as the manufacturers are in a different market entirely from cheap counterfeit goods. Gucci has legal protection from couterfeiters duplicating their goods and selling them, using copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.
Unfortunately, the example breaks down here, as, unlike Gucci or Prada, the American laborer doesn't seem to enjoy the same protection that corporations receive when dealing with counterfeits. Get caught conterfeiting, boom, Secret Service hauls your ass off. Sell pirate CD's, say hello to an RIAA lawsuit. Got a DVD factory making the latest movie before it's even in theatres, say hello to the MPAA. Enter the country illegally, and displace legitamate workers...hmm, well, looks like you got a green light and free healthcare. Oops, gg USA! Nice selective enforcement you got there!
I really can't fault the immigrants (not that they're innocent of course), the blame really lies with the employers who take adantage of the situation, and a government that turns a blind eye to the problem. People who complain about the problem are neither racist or anti-immigrant. There is a real grievance present that is not being addressed, and something needs to be done.
Convict on 4/7/2006 at 07:24
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Indeed. Not only is it a typically daft suggestion from Convict purely on a supply control basis, it'd also be very bad for the environment. Food that has to travel thousands of miles to get to your plate creates a huge amount of pollution.
Do you think that agricultural subsidies in America and the EU is a major problem for developing countries?
Hier on 4/7/2006 at 12:21
Quote Posted by Mingan
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, it work like this: if a baby is born on canadian soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, it is automatically granted canadian citizenship.
So, if you go on vacations in Canada whilst pregnant and you give birth there, it'll have canadian citizenship. It even happened that immigrants were rejected, but they had a baby meanwhile; the kid could stay in Canada, but not the parents.
This has been true since 1977. If the person was born before that, there are other details that need to be taken into account--they may not necessarily be a Canadian citizen. If they aren't currently, then obtaining that citizenship should be fairly easy (provided they currently live in Canada).
