ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Accepting the minimum truth

The Economist is attempting to square the circle between standing by its globalist principles while minimizing the inevitable political consequences of those principles:
Matteo Salvini, Italy’s hard-right interior minister, deputy prime minister and leader of its Northern League, is surging in the popularity polls. Mr Salvini is likely in due course to become Italy’s leader in large part because of his uncompromising stance on immigration. “People whose only contact with immigrants is with the Filipino servant who takes the dog for a walk in the evening are in favour of immigration, but they have no idea of how immigration is lived in the peripheries,” he said in July.

That, in a nutshell, is the charge made against smug liberals who champion “open borders”. They get all the benefits of large-scale migration from low-wage countries: cheap nannies, Uber drivers, decorators, waiters, sandwich-makers, chambermaids and dog-walkers. But they don’t rely on public housing, tend to have private health-care and often pay for private education so that their children are not brought up in classes where, in some cases, their native tongue is spoken by a minority.

Meanwhile those locals not so fortunate as the cosmopolitan elite (who kid themselves that they deserve their good fortune because they worked hard, ignoring that they started life on third base) often compete with people who will work for less because they are prepared to live in dorms or bedsits, having left their families at home.

It is a crude oversimplification. Economically, migrants are a net plus. European Union migrants in Britain, for example, typically contribute more in taxes and take less in benefits than the natives they ostensibly “compete” with. In global utilitarian terms, the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born. For the host country, more labour means a bigger economy, so that more money is available to be spent on the schools, hospitals and houses needed to accomodate the newcomers (though in these straitened times the money is often not spent on doing that). The liberal case for more immigration is pretty clear.

The trouble is, many liberal leaders forgot to ask citizens if they wanted large-scale migration from distant lands. And it turns out that a large number of them did not.
What the Economist calls "a crude oversimplification" is the truth. What is actually "a crude oversimplification" that is false is the claim that "economically, migrants are a net plus". That claim is only viable in certain circumstances, when GDP is substituted for native economic wealth per capita.

In fact, given the way GDP is measured, it is a tautology; moving the entire population of China into the United States would also be a net plus, economically. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria was also a massive net plus, economically. The fundamental error of the Economist is to assume that all economic growth is intrinsically desirable, no matter what the cost.

Labels: , ,

69 Comments:

Blogger Cecil Henry October 20, 2018 1:13 PM  

Ah, The Economist:

'All facts, NO Truth'


A nation is NOT just an economy. It is a people.


The economy exists to serve the people of the nation, not the converse.

It is not some invisible god that must be served no matter the cost.

Blogger James Dixon October 20, 2018 1:22 PM  

> Economically, migrants are a net plus. European Union migrants in Britain, for example, typically contribute more in taxes and take less in benefits than the natives they ostensibly “compete” with.

Don't they ever get tired of lying? We all know it's a lie at this point.

Blogger ace October 20, 2018 1:24 PM  

Laughing Bear looked down at the dusty path in front of him.

"The white man has taken all our ancestral lands, we've lost everything."

He heard a derisive snort from the man walking behind.

"What a crude oversimplification. The GDP has--"

"Hey!" came the harsh rebuke from a white man on horseback, waving the rifle he was carrying forward along the path "Less talky talk more marchy march!"

Blogger Peaceful Poster October 20, 2018 1:28 PM  

Did the Economist really say (((cosmopolitan elite)))?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 20, 2018 1:28 PM  

"In fact, given the way GDP is measured, it is a tautology"

There we go. Governmental throughput/spending counts multiple times for GDP, so more people utilizing that system always generates a "benefit" in terms of GDP, even while what's actually happening is the elites are ravaging the commoners.

Blogger tublecane October 20, 2018 1:40 PM  

Does the Economist commit that error, or are they just looking out for the interests of the Western elite (intellectual, financial, political, etc.)?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 20, 2018 1:40 PM  

"European Union migrants."

So well off people from other European countries. Okay?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 20, 2018 1:40 PM  

Kill all the libertarians

Blogger tublecane October 20, 2018 1:41 PM  

@5- When I first learned about the Magical Multipkier, I literally laughed out loud.

Blogger Hammerli280 October 20, 2018 1:44 PM  

@1: "The economy exists to serve the people of the nation, not the converse."

This, massively. One of the weaknesses of the GOPe is their failure to realize there are things more important than a dollar bill. And a lot of people would rather eat cornbread and be their own master, than be a slave in shackles of gold.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 20, 2018 1:46 PM  

GDP = Government's Disingenuous Propaganda.

Blogger John Calla October 20, 2018 1:46 PM  

Why they really want immigration is to keep consumption up so their awful economies don't collapse in on themselves. All those excuses they make are just trying to cover up that fact.

Blogger Lance E October 20, 2018 1:50 PM  

I also liked this part:

"But they don’t rely on public housing, tend to have private health-care and often pay for private education so that their children are not brought up in classes where, in some cases, their native tongue is spoken by a minority."

Aside from the "native tongue" bit, which I'm actually surprised they were willing to publish, this mostly supports the liberal narrative that the problem is simply one of socioeconomic status. You see, if we had more affordable housing, if we had "better schools", if we had fully nationalized healthcare, then all these plebs would have no problem with migrants!

We just need a way to pay for all that housing, schools and healthcare... hmmm... I know, what about bringing in more migrants! That raises the GDP, which raises tax revenue, which will pay for all the government services! Right?

Blogger tublecane October 20, 2018 1:57 PM  

"it turns out..."

Gee, maybe they shoulda asked about immigration in polls prior to Merkel's Boner. Wait, they did? And those in positions of responsibility have known forever?

Hmm, guess it didn't "turn out" after all. That's almost kinda sorta dishonest on the Economist's part.

Blogger Not Important October 20, 2018 2:03 PM  

Trying to explain how "AKSHUALLY your lying eyes are decieving you"?
That argument is lost. They know that. There's a reason they try to create facts on the ground.

Blogger Silent Draco October 20, 2018 2:08 PM  

And no mention of the benefit from handing 50 lire to Giuseppe down the street, to walk your dog. In 10 years, he's your mason after getting into trade education. Now it's 50000 lire to fix the leak. The money still goes down the street, and stays locally.

Nothing remitted out.
No bureaucrats were used.
No one's dog eaten by the wrong culture.
Nice boy marries, has a decent flat, raised 3-4 good kids.
Now, Giorgio walks your son's dog ...

Blogger Dr Caveman October 20, 2018 2:18 PM  

"the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born"

One of those downsides is having your native girls raped by gangs of Pakistani Muslims. But that's a small price to pay

Blogger Da Man October 20, 2018 2:20 PM  

Why I HATE millennials
https://youtu.be/aapbKI0jruI?t=539

Blogger pyrrhus October 20, 2018 2:21 PM  

Actually, immigration is a huge minus unless it is restricted (as in Switzerland) to highly skilled folks who won't take or get welfare...But the magic "GDP" doesn't take that negative factor into account...The Economist is lying again...

Blogger pyrrhus October 20, 2018 2:23 PM  

"the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born"

Jeremy Bentham would be so proud...How do you place a value on the availability of white girls, and sometimes boys, for raping? It's yuuuge!

Blogger TM Lutas October 20, 2018 2:25 PM  

There is a US visa category, the EB-5 visa. You have to invest $500k into an economically depressed area or $1m into a regular area in order to qualify for the visa. There are job creation requirements too. The social services used by EB-5 visa holders are insignificant. EB-5 visas are basically the best case of economic benefit from immigration outside the numerically insignificant EB-1 'genius visa'.

How many Mexican campesinos from Chiapas state (poor even by Mexican standards) with their pressure on education and social services equals one EB-5 visa holder? It's not difficult to guess that it takes a bunch of them. But there is no real balance, even on pure economic terms. You might have a group of EB-5 visas holder opening up a nice ski lodge in New Hampshire while those counterbalancing campesinos are hitting education budgets in Val Verde county Texas.

The geographic distribution of various immigrants are not even which means that there are winners and losers in this game. But nobody does the math and measures how this geographic disparity actually plays out.

If the economic issue isn't being measured right, there's zero chance for the political and cultural issues to get a fair evaluation.

Blogger Phelps October 20, 2018 2:28 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Economically, migrants are a net plus. European Union migrants in Britain, for example, typically contribute more in taxes and take less in benefits than the natives they ostensibly “compete” with.

Don't they ever get tired of lying? We all know it's a lie at this point.


This lie is particularly insidious. Note that they specify EU immigrants -- meaning other Europeans. And who do they count as the "natives"? First generation children of Pakistani invaders.

Blogger Jonathon Davies October 20, 2018 2:28 PM  

Numerous studies, including most recently the Migration Advisory Committee, have found immigration to Britain has brought negligible benefits, while house prices have soared and wages are stifled.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-advisory-committee-mac-report-eea-migration

The Economist is a laughable globalist mouthpiece.

Blogger InformationMerchant October 20, 2018 2:34 PM  

I've run into that cherry picked example before although haven't actually read the report on it to see how they came up with their conclusions, the reason being the conclusions were:

1: "Migration is not a major determinate of the wages of UK born workers."

2: "EEA migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits... Overall EEA migration has a positive effect on the public finances."

3: "EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service than they consume in services."

4: "Migrants have no or little impact on unemployment outcomes for the UK born workforce."

Migration Advisory Committee


------

Meanwhile in 2016:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593872/17bn-true-cost-immigration-UK-year.html

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/448

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/381


A better example if I were to cherry pick would be European immigration into the USA. Europeans use less welfare than natives, the numbers on this blog for Mexican and Black net gains are nuts.

But like putting the finest German university graduates in the UK, even a model citizen from a tax and crime perspective will bring along things you don't want but can't include in an economic argument. The open borders, pro EU Germans were not happy with the Brexit vote.

Likewise, the Europeans that can be dropped off in the United States with lower welfare usage and higher taxes paid would need to be filtered to keep the gun free migrant rape parties away from the country.

Speaking of which, the 20 guys that Tommy Robinson was reporting on got 10 years each, so they'll be out in 5 years.

It's lovely to talk of Italy and use an example for certain approved zones of Europe but Italy is removing those kind of guys, the ones that have raped a generation of kids. They weren't Germans.

The economic benefits argument is going to go out of the window when the wrong girl gets killed or raped and someone from the SAS responds with IEDs. If Italy can clean them out without bloodshed, they're going to look like saints when one country finally snaps.

Blogger Stannous Baratheon October 20, 2018 2:37 PM  

“Economically, migrants are a net plus. European Union migrants in Britain, for example, typically contribute more in taxes and take less in benefits than the natives they ostensibly “compete” with. In global utilitarian terms, the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born.”

Ah, intellectual sleight of hand. It’s so easy to create the illusion of sense by starting with “migration is a net plus”, switching to “European Union migrants” in the next sentence, and then generalizing to “global utilitarian terms”.

Blogger Eduardo October 20, 2018 3:00 PM  

There is a flip side of the coin
When you guys are the migrants you tend to make places better! Well tend to... Now, DO YOU wanna deprive the world of the benefit of having you as the Nation-Building Migrants?

... yeah it is a joke no need to get mad...

End of the Line.

Blogger DonReynolds October 20, 2018 3:05 PM  

"It is a crude oversimplification. Economically, migrants are a net plus. European Union migrants in Britain, for example, typically contribute more in taxes and take less in benefits than the natives they ostensibly “compete” with. In global utilitarian terms, the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born. For the host country, more labour means a bigger economy, so that more money is available to be spent on the schools, hospitals and houses needed to accomodate the newcomers (though in these straitened times the money is often not spent on doing that). The liberal case for more immigration is pretty clear."

So, the Economist wants to replace a crude simplification with outright lies and deceptions. Cute. What else can you do in the way of stupid pet tricks?

More labor does not mean a bigger economy, it means more unemployment, and since employers are more than delighted to hire cheap foreign labor, rather than not-quite-so-cheap native labor, then it is citizens who are left out of the bargain. The fact that you had rather hire a ISIS fighter or a Hindu new arrival, means that a native Brit is left without a job. The native Brit still lives with his family and did not leave them behind in the Turd World country to fend for themselves, so throwing native Brits out of work may end up costing MORE in welfare benefits than the idle invaders.

But of course, the invaders are not idle in the least. WE are told they are very enterprising and creative, and we know that because of the crime statistics... murder, rape, robbery, assault...all have the distinct foreign flavor and tendency. No mention at all of the cost of crime and the direct (often painful) cost paid by native Brits, which is entirely uncompensated by anyone.

The Economist is doing another whopper, based on ideology. The invaders are NOT a "net plus" for anybody....except the country they left behind. First because they are no longer in it and Second because they might send some money back to their family. As for the EU migrants, surely there are some. A good many came to the UK from Poland but what is showing up in the crime statistics and demonstrations are not Poles. WE simply do not have a Polish crime problem, and everyone knows it. Everyone knows what are the problem populations, without even having to say it. No need to lie....Economist magazine....and no need to pretend that economic criteria justifies the continued invasion by a hostile and unemployable flood with no job skills.

Blogger Zach October 20, 2018 3:09 PM  

The trouble is, many liberal leaders forgot to ask citizens if they wanted large-scale migration from distant lands...

They "forgot." As if it were a mere oversight.

Blogger Lucas October 20, 2018 3:12 PM  

"the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside"

Who cares? The benifits of stealing to the thief are much great than the downsides. So what?

These globalists are totally out of touch with the working class.

Blogger OneWingedShark October 20, 2018 3:15 PM  

Vox Day wrote:The fundamental error of the Economist is to assume that all economic growth is intrinsically desirable, no matter what the cost.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." -- Edward Abbey

It's much like the observably stupid idea in the corporate world that effectively equates to "all short-term growth/profits are good", despite the obvious problems when institutional knowledge is discarded in the prototypical "we can hire three graduate engineers for what we pay our senior engineers!"-scheme.

Blogger Mark Stoval October 20, 2018 3:18 PM  

Imagine if the populist program Rothbard suggested in 1992 had been tried.

Just #2 and #3 would have been most helpful in stopping the invasion.

2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire “civil rights” structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

Yes, we were called racists by the left and now the right, in a comment above, is calling for our murder. Oh well, but it would have helped to stop paying the bastards to come here and then giving them a huge advantage in all things once they were here.

Let the black whine or take to the streets. STOP welfare, the freebies, and racial preferences in favor of all things African.

It would be a start.


( Did Rothbard support Buchanan? You bet. And he worked overtime trying to get Buchanan up to speed on broader economic issues while defending him against the ridiculous charges of the left.)

Blogger pyrrhus October 20, 2018 3:18 PM  

Actually, all the welfare and medical costs attributable to immigrants, estimated at $300 billion/yr in the US, are added to GDP as part of Government spending, and account for much of the "growth" that is cited by the open borders crowd. The Economist would call this a win/win.

Blogger DonReynolds October 20, 2018 3:19 PM  

"The liberal case for more immigration is pretty clear."

Yes, yes.....the Liberal case for more immigration is identical to their argument for more free trade, which they intend to promote by killing off all domestic producers, since they may pollute the immediate environment. But by killing off the manufacturing base of the country, just where in Hell are all the new Muslim and Hindu arrivals going to work (and pay all those taxes, for those wonderful public services)? What good paying jobs can they do without having to speak or understand even the most basic English words (or how to use indoor plumbing)? What job skills are common in Central Afrika that are in short supply in the UK?

I know.....sperm donor.

Blogger SciVo October 20, 2018 3:22 PM  

Who thinks they would be copacetic with someone citing their "reasoning" to praise white colonialism? I think they would trip over their own feet in their rush to denounce it. It's pure Who/Whom sophistry, with not a single objective principle anywhere in sight.

Blogger Mark Stoval October 20, 2018 3:23 PM  

Another word on welfare.

If you don't have the balls to call for the total abolition of welfare for all, then at least call for the total doing away with welfare or any freebie at all to the new immigrant. And none for the children of them either. And their children.

Blogger Alex October 20, 2018 3:37 PM  

Utter fucking bullshit from the NPC elite’s intellectual organ. The assumption that, pfft, EVERYONE knows large-scale immigration from third-word countries is a net benefit that puts more into the economy than native Europeans, and takes less out of it than those lazy entitled white people, while offering zero evidence AND ignoring evidence to the contrary, is a classic NPC tell.

Immigration good because magazine says it’s good.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len October 20, 2018 3:37 PM  

The trouble is, many liberal leaders forgot to ask citizens if they wanted large-scale migration from distant lands.

Yep, that's what happened, they 'forgot', since they're alway so busy busy busy!


In global utilitarian terms, the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born.

So what? The world isn't going to collapse if we end up short some Somalis.

For the host country, more labour means a bigger economy, so that more money is available

Gesù Cristo, a publication called "the Economist" is actually unironically using the idiotic pablum of "more workers means more jobs!" and the evergreen delusion (often used in defense of tax money for billionaire sportsball owners) that any such "new jobs" somehow generate new money rather than just redirecting existing flows.

Blogger Lance E October 20, 2018 3:45 PM  

Mark Stoval wrote:If you don't have the balls to call for the total abolition of welfare for all, then at least call for the total doing away with welfare or any freebie at all to the new immigrant. And none for the children of them either. And their children.

The problem is, liberals will wail and cry and gnash their teeth whenever they hear of some poor starving family 3 towns over. And this presents an opening for politicians and media to stir up outrage, buy votes, open the borders and expand the franchise again.

You think we can just roll back the clock 50 years, or maybe 100 years. We can't. The culture has already changed too much. And even if the culture was exactly the same today as it was back then, what good would it do when those exact circumstances clearly led us to our current situation today - not just in the USA, but in nearly every western country?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch October 20, 2018 3:46 PM  

It dawns on me reading this post that basic truths are blown off these days as crude oversimplifications.

Blogger Lance E October 20, 2018 3:49 PM  

Don't Call Me Len wrote:For the host country, more labour means a bigger economy, so that more money is available

Gesù Cristo, a publication called "the Economist" is actually unironically using the idiotic pablum of "more workers means more jobs!" and the evergreen delusion (often used in defense of tax money for billionaire sportsball owners) that any such "new jobs" somehow generate new money rather than just redirecting existing flows.


It's pablum to us, but for the average "economist", it's just Keynes-Fisher Macroeconomics, AKA macroeconomics, AKA "economics". Consumer demand, not productivity, is the denominator. Capital flight? Does not compute. Can't we just print more money?

Blogger Don't Call Me Len October 20, 2018 3:51 PM  

OT - The only funny thing she's ever said -

http://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/id/25033917/amy-schumer-says-do-super-bowl-commercial-show-support-kneeling-players

Blogger pyrrhus October 20, 2018 4:10 PM  

@40 Every economist knows that wet streets cause rain....

Blogger pyrrhus October 20, 2018 4:14 PM  

"In global utilitarian terms, the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born.

So what? The world isn't going to collapse if we end up short some Somalis."

Given that the average IQ in Somalia is 69, the World would clearly be grateful if they disappeared. A pirate shortage doesn't seem to be a problem...

Blogger Long Live The West October 20, 2018 4:14 PM  

They're also forgetting that a lot of the wealth 'created' by these illegal aliens is being sent back to their home countries.

Anybody with a brain should be able to figure out that if more money is leaving than coming in you are running a deficit.

Blogger Bubba October 20, 2018 4:30 PM  

I love the GDP argument. When Englishmen invaded North America, when the Spanish invaded South America, when the Texicans invaded Northern Mexico, when the English invaded Australia, and when the Europeans invaded Africa, the GDP of all these places just exploded in growth.

These lands were inhabited by uneconomical, unproductive, imbecile aborigines who couldn't even make a freaking wheel, let alone write.

These invasions made the Americas and Africa and the South Pacific productive, efficient economies!

I still can't figure out why the aborigines fought the European invasions when their economies had so much to gain!

The only thing I can figure is that the aborigines were deeply, fatally, suicidally racist.

Blogger Paul M October 20, 2018 4:49 PM  

Cecil Henry wrote:The economy exists to serve the people of the nation, not the converse.
Ditto the military establishment. Both spheres make the same error: supposing that what they do is the nation. The nation is its families.

Blogger Haxo Angmark October 20, 2018 5:03 PM  

The Economist is a

(((Rothschild))) property

Blogger Dirk Manly October 20, 2018 5:29 PM  

@32

"Actually, all the welfare and medical costs attributable to immigrants, estimated at $300 billion/yr in the US, are added to GDP as part of Government spending, and account for much of the "growth" that is cited by the open borders crowd. The Economist would call this a win/win."

Not to mention the additional expensive hospitalization costs of native born who survive (or not) beatings, knifings, and gunshots from immivaders.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 20, 2018 5:36 PM  

@46

"Ditto the military establishment. Both spheres make the same error: supposing that what they do is the nation. The nation is its families."

Maybe among military contractors. But that generally is not true among the troops.

Blogger tz October 20, 2018 5:51 PM  

Government spending on welfare and prisons and crime also increases the GDP.

For some reason I can't fathom, the GDP does NOT subtract debt. In fact I think intrest payments are considered part of the positive.

This is just a corrollary to Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy". Just think of how much economic activity will happen when the muslim immigrants do to Paris what Hitler's generals refused to do, or to London if the V2 was perfected earlier!

Immigrants can only be a net positive in very narrow circumstances, There are probably more, like there aren't enough doctors (insufficient supply even if demand warrants it) in Africa, there aren't enough natives who could become doctors right now (inelastic supply of skill), etc.

The only question is when people will realize there is a huge oversupply of elite globalists and drain the swamp and use their corpses to generate natural gas as they decay.

Speaking of things like Jordanetics, the Globalists are basically a secular version of pagan priests who demand tribute and sacrifice lest the gods get angry and send disaster (They should just bring back Gaia - well, Captain Planet did).

We need a Knights Templar and give them stinger missiles to shoot down private jets because they waste too much energy. Destroy pipelines, not Keystone XL, but those bringing fuel into California. Burn the huge mansions to the ground. Sink Yachts. Or such. All these things are in the deep blue area, so it would just need AntiFa to go green.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey October 20, 2018 5:59 PM  

The importance of GDP, in one short lesson:

Krugman and Bernanke are walking down the street and see a pile of dog shit. Bernanke says: "I'll give you twenty thousand dollars to eat that pile of shit." Krugman does it, gets paid, and they keep walking.

After a while they see another pile of shit on the road. Seeing an opportunity for revenge, Krugman says: "Tell you what, I'll give YOU twenty grand to eat that pile of shit." Bernanke does it, Krugman gives him back the money, and they keep walking.

After a while Bernanke says "I'm feeling pretty sick. We both ate shit and neither of us is any richer." Krugman answers: "You're missing the bigger picture. We've increased GDP by forty thousand dollars and created two jobs."

Blogger eclecticme October 20, 2018 6:01 PM  

I live in the US I do not know a lot about the EU and immigration.

The Ecnomist says "for example" then uses an EU immigrant as an example. Why not an African or Syrian, 'for example'?

The 'GDP' or 'economy' are not the honest concepts to use when discussing immigration with citizens. The honest terms would be GDP per capita and better yet income per citizen. Tell them they are each going to be worse off on average but 'the economy' will be better.

Notice how citizens were sold on importing the turd world in some countries to support the retirement system but were later told the retirement age had to increase because they had imported the immigrants who are a net tax loss?

In the US employers like Walmart and the meatpackers effectively import workers then externalize the social costs on having them here. Taxpayers pick up the added welfare, health care, and educations costs. Their business model depends on being subsidized by the taxpayers. If they had to pay the true costs they would not import the low wage workers.

Blogger eclecticme October 20, 2018 6:30 PM  

So, immigrants are a net plus to 'the economy'?
How can those Poles, Hungarians, and Italians be so stupid to turn that obvious benefit? If they are such a plus why does the EU have to force them down countries' throats?

Fast forward 10 or 20 years. How will the countries refusing entry to the turd world fare? How about Sweden, France, etc.? We know the answer.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 20, 2018 6:38 PM  

@52

"n the US employers like Walmart and the meatpackers effectively import workers then externalize the social costs on having them here. Taxpayers pick up the added welfare, health care, and educations costs. Their business model depends on being subsidized by the taxpayers. If they had to pay the true costs they would not import the low wage workers."

Talking to people who have worked at Walmart, they now include welfare benefits applications in their "new employee paperwork" pack.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 20, 2018 6:38 PM  

Sam Walton's heirs can't be killed fast enough. They have disgraced his good name.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey October 20, 2018 7:11 PM  

It seems rather selfish of the US and European countries to hog all of the undisputed economic benefits of Third world immigration to themselves.

Perhaps they should offer to share some of these benefits with other deserving countries? Like our greatest ally, for instance. We could give them a few thousand Somalis or Afghans -- I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Once the Economist manages to better quantitate the exact present value of each non-white immigrant, we could even count it as in-kind aid, as a partial replacement for the current cash aid. A win/ win situation! No question.

It would have a pleasing sort of symmetry, as well -- since the family that owns The Economist is the same one that financially backed Herzl's Zionist project.

Blogger Roddie Piper October 20, 2018 8:39 PM  

Immigration could be a net plus if you imported only the world's best and brightest minds, like Singapore does. High-IQ immigrants assimilate well, which also means that their birth rate quickly drops to the first-world norm.

Big cities import smart men and beautiful women and effectively sterilize them, leaving the rest of the world stupider and uglier with each generation. The Soviets accelerated this global brain-drain by giving low-IQ peasants AK-47s and telling them that their high-IQ landlords were "exploiting" them.

Blogger Random #57 October 20, 2018 8:51 PM  

@57.Roddie Piper:

Big cities import smart men and beautiful women and effectively sterilize them, leaving the rest of the world stupider and uglier with each generation.

And city-states, Singapore is an IQ shredder.

Blogger Jack Amok October 20, 2018 9:29 PM  

The only thing I can figure is that the aborigines were deeply, fatally, suicidally racist.

Well, their descendants join organizations with obviously racist names like The Cherokee Nation, so what do you expect.

As far as big cities go, they're nothing but problems. Enablers of the worst parts of the gene pool, disablers of the best parts.

Blogger Up from the pond October 20, 2018 10:01 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger English Tom October 20, 2018 10:20 PM  

They don't say anything about migrants sending money to their home countries which I don't believe is any benefit in any sense for the host country.

Blogger Up from the pond October 20, 2018 10:35 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Up from the pond October 20, 2018 10:47 PM  

Understood as a science, economics is like meteorology: its usefulness lies in its predictions.

Historically, the predictions of meteorology have probably been about as accurate as, or even more accurate than, those of economic "science."

Before we conclude that economics is useless or fraudulent, we need to see it, not as a science, but as what people used to know it to be: a branch of moral philosophy.

Economics is less predictive than descriptive, and just as prescriptive as descriptive.

Economics is morality applied to buying and selling. It is a fact-based understanding of how we think economic life SHOULD be dealt with to foster or create certain moral goods.

Hiding behind economic "science": this is the oligarchs' method of concealing the particular moral goods they want out of economic life. Why conceal them? Because "screw the commoners, destroy the nations, death to Western civilization, and (((our people))) on top" won't sell, even at Objectivist conferences (off-line discussions are a different matter). To convince the victims to swallow their own dispossession as if it's the inevitable result of science, they need sleight-of-hand concepts like GDP.

One more thing, on "net plus" being applied to economic matters, especially immigration.

Net plus is just another sleight-of-hand that hides winners and losers, like GDP does. What does the net comprise, if it's a "net plus" that a Singapore or a Somali native migrates to the U.S.A.? Evidently, this net comprises the globe. So the globe, or at least the two countries involved, experiences a "net plus" when x migrates. What this means is that some cosmopolitan based in, say, London, benefits - while an American's kids are dispossessed or he is taxed more, and the migrant involved is screwed either on wages or out of his own nation or both. Yet a "net benefit" is recorded because value went into the cosmopolitan's pocket. Sure, the cosmopolitan will reinvest that value. For example, maybe he will buy his kids a vacation home in the U.S.A., where an American man's kids will make the beds. After all, those kids have to do any job they are legally allowed to have, in order to help him pay his medical bills, since they and he are relegated to a second- or fifth-class economic life, if any, by migrants, who themselves will be the victims of the next wave of different migrants, forever, or at least until all the Amaleks are destroyed and a certain someone based in London can ululate from his hot tub. Until then the ever-richer and ever more politically influential "net benefiters" deplore our apparent inability to understand economic "science," while knowing that if more people did understand it, they would hang.

[Sorry for edit problems on my end]

Blogger Bobiojimbo October 21, 2018 2:36 AM  

Oh man, reading mental gymnastics is painful for me. Thanks for sharing some counter arguments.

Blogger Lance E October 21, 2018 2:54 AM  

Roddie Piper wrote:High-IQ immigrants assimilate well

Putting aside the untruth of that statement by itself: what about their children?

You guys do realize that Singapore is an authoritarian dictatorship, right? Not that I have anything against dictatorships - in fact I think every country should have one - but if you are a fan of democracy or democracy-lite (Republicanism etc.) then the Singapore model ain't gonna work for you.

Blogger Resident Moron™ October 21, 2018 4:27 AM  

Which democracy has ever "worked"?

At least in Singapore your teenage daughter can walk down the street in almost absolute safety.

If it comes to a choice of immigrants, I'd take a Singaporean over just about any other non-european nation, every time.

I'd take them over some of the euros, too, e.g. France, England, to name just two.

Blogger Random #57 October 21, 2018 1:32 PM  

@66 Resident Moron™:

If it comes to a choice of immigrants, I'd take a Singaporean

We need to be physically removing masses of immigrants from the nation as a whole, or from the fragments of it that aren't going to be viciously anti-white, so at best it's a choice of who you remove first. I'm certainly willing to leave Singaporeans for last, but I doubt the process will be clean such that we even rank order which groups get deported when.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia October 21, 2018 6:52 PM  

Vox, I don't know if you've watched any of Steve Bannon's recent interviews in Europe with the "globalist" media -- he's been doing quite of bit of touring for his advising/consulting project -- but the kind of thinking you outline in your post is rampant. They just don't get it.

The stuff they spout is either so incorrect or so illogical it beggars belief.

tuff like "Orban is a nationalist, nationalism led to two world wars, therefore Orban is bad, racist, whatever." It is astonishing and infuriating.

Steve keeps a calm demeanor and tries to set them straight, but it's hopeless. These "smart" people simply cannot see that those wars were caused and lubricated by nations that wanted empires, not nations that wanted to be left alone in their individual sovereignty.

They cannot process this fundamental, basic, and simple truth.

Blogger usman rafiq October 23, 2018 1:14 PM  

yes, If comes to a choice of immigrants, I'd take a Singaporean over just about any other non-european nation, every time in that days.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts