ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, July 02, 2016

Good for the economy

I was thinking about it was strange how the mantra that immigration is "good for the economy always remains the same no matter what the costs imposed on the invaded nation are.
The tidal wave of refugees that crashed through Germany’s doors last year has long turned to a trickle, but the costs of the inflow will remain a burden on the country for years, budget figures released on Friday showed. The German finance ministry expects to spend $86.2 billion over the next four years feeding, housing and training refugees as well as helping their home countries to stem the flow.
So, the economy is measured in terms of GDP. GDP = C+I+G+(x-m)... wait a minute!

Immigrants are good for the economy, by definition, because they always increase government spending!

Labels: ,

99 Comments:

Blogger Robert What? July 02, 2016 10:07 AM  

Call it the "Full Employment for Bureaucrats Act".

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 02, 2016 10:09 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger wrf3 July 02, 2016 10:15 AM  

Is there any way to calculate the long term effects of this spending? Does this expenditure result in eventual growth, or loss?

Blogger David Power July 02, 2016 10:22 AM  

Apart from the EU, is there any other part of the world where unlimited Mass-Immigration a prerequisite to Trade?

Blogger The Other Robot July 02, 2016 10:28 AM  

Bullets would be cheaper.

Blogger Michael Maier July 02, 2016 10:30 AM  

Immigrants are good for the economy, by definition, because they always increase government spending!

I having fun on Twitter last week with some idiots and they said the US Dollar cannot ever collapse.

The contention was that government debt (in the US, at least) does not matter at all because it's never intended to be paid back and the government doesn't owe it to itself.

So it's a perfect system, don't you see?

When I asked "Well then why doesn't the government just give everyone everything they need and then no one ever has to work again?"

"Now you're just making strawmen."

Blogger The Other Robot July 02, 2016 10:30 AM  

On a more serious note, both the bureaucrats and companies that supply the products that the bureaucrats can be convinced that the illegals need benefit.

Hmmm, this sounds more and more like fascism. D'oh. It's Germany we are talking about, but now the German people pays now. Does it win later?

Blogger Michael Maier July 02, 2016 10:31 AM  

As for the immigrants, I cannot wait to watch the EU fail. I hope the US overthrows its "masters" at the same time.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 02, 2016 10:34 AM  

Immigrants are good for the economy, by definition, because they always increase government spending!

If I understand the situation correctly, massive amounts of government debt is the only thing keeping the Titanic afloat at this point.

So yeah, I suppose.

Blogger James Dixon July 02, 2016 10:34 AM  

> Immigrants are good for the economy, by definition, because they always increase government spending!

For those watching at home (Vox knows this), it only increases GDP if you assume the public wouldn't have spent the money if they had been allowed to keep it or if it's defivit spending.

Blogger S1AL July 02, 2016 10:40 AM  

GDP is useful primarily for obfuscation. News at 11.

Anonymous r July 02, 2016 10:42 AM  

Think of all the jobs being created in hospitals, shelters, etc. for rape counseling services!

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 10:43 AM  

VD
Immigrants are good for the economy, by definition, because they always increase government spending!



as i've been complaining about for going on a decade now, GDP does not consider "friction" or "entropy" to exist.

well, shit. if you let me assume that friction and entropy aren't real, the failure of my perpetual motion machine is ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

what's wrong with you, didn't you get a public school education?

Blogger residentMoron July 02, 2016 10:46 AM  

"Immigrants are good for the economy, by definition, because they always increase government spending!

In other words, good for the government = good for the economy = good for the nation.

So this claim, like so many others, rests on the fallacy that the government is the nation, and some evil genius economist, a court intellectual, has encoded this in the GDP formula.

Hoo-bloody-Ray.

Blogger YIH July 02, 2016 10:54 AM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

Anonymous trk July 02, 2016 11:08 AM  

Is the plan to let in millions of young muslim men into the EU so that they can be used as front line cannon fodder for the next big war w Russia? Someone has to storm Moscow in the winter....

Anonymous crushlimbraw July 02, 2016 11:10 AM  

Isn't this GDP blather just a warmed up 'broken window' theory?

Blogger Desillusionerad July 02, 2016 11:15 AM  

In other words, good for the government = good for the economy = good for the nation.

So this claim, like so many others, rests on the fallacy that the government is the nation, and some evil genius economist, a court intellectual, has encoded this in the GDP formula.

Hoo-bloody-Ray.

This problem arises, because in western nations (the US slightly excluded) the population was always roughly the same so a gdp growth meant a gdp/capita growth - And this then made it so no one ever felt the need to point out that crucial bit to many economist, and all politicians and journalists.
Thats how you can have idiots saying 'immigration is always good for the economy, and no one asks, but is it good for the people'
And some people of course don't care because to care more about your countrymen is racist, but i would wager most are simply to stupid to realize.

Blogger praetorian July 02, 2016 11:15 AM  

It's an accounting identity!

Why do you hate accounting?

/sarc

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 11:16 AM  

GDP = C+I+G+(x-m)


let's say that US GDP in 1980 was $1 trillion dollars, of which let's say that $250 billion was .gov spending.

IF you want to produce a GDP gain of ~5%
THEN why couldn't you just increase .gov spending to $300 billion for FY 1981?

after all, G is just as 'valuable' as any other component of the economy. even better, the .gov can simply debt finance the additional spending, as there is no penalty for debt in the formula.

hrm. maybe Jimmy Carter knew what he was doing when he introduced Baseline Spending after all?

the fact is that the GDP formula is easily gamed to produce any result that the .gov wants.

the problem is that 'Money' is not 'Wealth', nor is it 'Productivity'. worse, fiat debt money is not even real Capital.

it's a game of musical chairs in which the goal is to leave some other Greater Fool holding the bag when the music stops.

Anonymous Almost ABD July 02, 2016 11:26 AM  

What the Keynesians ignore and don't tell you is that increasing G will actually make GDP go down. Because the government has 3 sources to pay for G: 1) tax revenue 2) selling bonds 3) printing money.

Raising revenue by increasing taxes will reduce C and I. The assumption is that G will make up for these decreases, but whether or not it actually does no one knows. It's the magic of economics!

Raising revenue by selling government bonds will reduce C and I in the future, because the government must increase taxes to pay back the bonds. Of course, they can just rollover the bonds and/or issue more bonds, or just print money to pay off the bonds. These actions will reduce GDP.

And printing money reduces real GDP in the future once inflation hits, so that doesn't seem to work either.

Hrm....

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 11:31 AM  

well, shucky darn, looky there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_%28budgeting%29


"...assumes future budgets will equal the current budget times the inflation rate times the population growth rate."


ANY population growth is ASSUMED to 'grow the federal budget'.

and, as we've already seen, growth in the federal budget ( G ) is assumed to be growth in the economy.

therefore, illegal immigration 'grows the economy' simply due to the fact that larger numbers of people within the borders is assumed to drive greater .gov spending ... which increases GDP.

someone seriously needs a bullet in their head. and a lot of those "someones" have dual citizenship.

Anonymous BGKB July 02, 2016 11:31 AM  

it only increases GDP if you assume the public wouldn't have spent the money if they had been allowed to keep it or if it's defivit spending

Instead of spending money on wedding cakes, more taxes go out to support not just Latrina's 21 illegitimate crackbabies, but now ZIKA anchor babies that will cost taxpayers more than their birth weight in gold every year they are alive.

millions of young muslim men into the EU so that they can be used as front line cannon fodder for the next big war w Russia

They are cannon fodder for the war on white people that don't want their former nations enslaved to the (((elite))).

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 11:49 AM  

"Presently, the [automatic annual] Baseline Budgeting increase is about 7%."

the 2015 Federal budget is $3.7 trillion.

the US economy is estimated to be $17.914 trillion as of Q2 2015.

iow, the Federal .gov spends 1/5 of what is, for accounting purposes, GDP. 1/5th * .07 == 1.45% growth, every year in the GDP.

and that amount is baselined to 'grow' by 7% every year ( assuming no 'new' additional spending ... like Obamacare ).


therefore, anything less than a reported 1.5% GDP growth ( entirely a federal spending gain ) ... actually indicates a shrinking private economy.

Blogger Jewel July 02, 2016 11:59 AM  

The same arguments were made for slave markets.

Blogger Arthur Isaac July 02, 2016 12:26 PM  

I walked into a Walmart yesterday, between the 20 languages spoken, the facial tattoos and the hooker apparel I was left to wonder how you could possibly form a civil society from such as those. And it seemed my IQ dropped 5 points.

Blogger frenchy July 02, 2016 12:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger frenchy July 02, 2016 12:28 PM  

That whole GDP equation is jacked up. If anything, it should be:

C + I minus G + (x-m) = Y.

But then again, ending up with -Y would look bad.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 02, 2016 12:32 PM  

Perhaps now we understand why Jehovah didn't even let Israel take a census.

Any guesses to whom the Fed tithes?

Anonymous Rolf July 02, 2016 12:34 PM  

That is a truism for all bureaucracies. What's good for the bureaucracy is, by definition, good for the entire system. Expanding turf and headcount in HR, which everyone else calls bloat and inefficiency, those in HR see as a sign of success. They are expanding, the whole system must be getting bigger, and that must mean better, right? And you find that everywhere to some degree, more so in government where they are typically insulated from the costs of poor decision-making.

Anonymous andon July 02, 2016 12:35 PM  

18. Blogger Desillusionerad July 02, 2016 11:15 AM
In other words, good for the government = good for the economy = good for the nation.


makes sense if you work for the govt

Blogger Rusty Fife July 02, 2016 12:38 PM  

Instead of yhe 'Broken Windows Fallacy' we can call it the 'Broken Borders Fallacy'.

Welfare is the 'Broken Homes Fallacy'.

OpenID paworldandtimes July 02, 2016 12:45 PM  

Roosh made a SHORT VIDEO in which he describes his outlook for the ongoing globalist/nationalist war.

His outlook for the USA and Eastern Europe is cautiously optimistic (the former is armed, the latter has homogeneous populations) and at this time grim for Western Europe. He warns about the globalists' last-resort move: a nuclear war with Russia.

PA

Anonymous #8601 Jean Valjean July 02, 2016 12:54 PM  

Economists say that population growth drives economic growth. So lets grow the population, and hence the economy, by importing a bunch of Third World savages. What could go wrong?

Blogger Cail Corishev July 02, 2016 1:10 PM  

And yet I haven't noticed economists being great protesters against abortion and birth control. For some reason, they seem much more fond of importing population growth than producing it natively.

Anonymous Moonbear July 02, 2016 1:11 PM  

@33 That does seem to be the case, they assume population growth = growth. Which I suppose is true if you are a cultural marxist.
I have to wonder what the genetic loss is valued at, is there even a economic price tag we can put on the loss of IQ and productive European genetics?

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 1:24 PM  

27. frenchy July 02, 2016 12:28 PM
If anything, it should be:
C + I minus G + (x-m) = Y.



i've been over this before.

i wouldn't call non-surplus .gov spending ENTIRELY negative, but there certainly needs to be a "frictional" adjustment for tax collection / disbursement if nothing else.

say something like ( G * .8 )

whereas deficit spending should logically be AT LEAST as 'bad' for the economy as the Import portion of the equation.

for FY 2015, the US .gov is shown spending $3.7 trillion and collecting $3.25 trillion in taxes.

therefore, my formula would be more like
GDP = C + I + G(( 3.25t * .8 ) - .45t ) +( x - m )

for a net .gov "value" to the national economy of $2.15 trillion

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 02, 2016 1:31 PM  

"I have to wonder what the genetic loss is valued at, is there even a economic price tag we can put on the loss of IQ and productive European genetics?"

The most valuable things in our lives don't have a price.

Anonymous SingSling July 02, 2016 2:02 PM  

Bingo. GDP goes up but GDP per capita declines... Govt win, we lose

Anonymous BGKB July 02, 2016 2:10 PM  

Well importing the 3rd world pays pretty well for refusegee resettlement contractors and those that profit from redistribution. Anyone still a Cruzite?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/30/goldman-sachs-to-lead-effort-in-settling-mid-east-refugees/

And yet I haven't noticed economists being great protesters against abortion and birth control.

They can loot the taxes of women who work but not breed. If the women are smart that's less future completion that could catch them committing frauds. Also moving low IQ populations around lets them gain control. Steve Sailor links to the Affirmatively Fair Housing Plan to take Federal control over all local governments. http://www.unz.com/isteve/learning-from-israel-the-daley-emanuel-plan-for-chicago-population-transfers/

Anonymous EH July 02, 2016 2:11 PM  

I was looking for alternatives to GDP that were more sensible, and not finding any, though there are lots that are contrived to reach whatever policy conclusions desired by the person proposing the new statistic. Then I found an interesting WP article, Mechanism design:

Mechanism design is a field in economics and game theory that takes an engineering approach to designing economic mechanisms or incentives, toward desired objectives, in strategic settings, where players act rationally. Because it starts at the end of the game, then goes backwards, it is also called reverse game theory. ....

.... the goal function is the main “given”, while the mechanism is the unknown. Therefore, the design problem is the “inverse” of traditional economic theory, which is typically devoted to the analysis of the performance of a given mechanism.[1] So, two distinguishing features of these games are:

* that a game "designer" chooses the game structure rather than inheriting one

*that the designer is interested in the game's outcome


Which sounds like something Vox would do, though not assuming rationality but rather emotional decision-making on the part of the players. What design principles or patterns work best in such designs?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 02, 2016 2:13 PM  

I'm a fan of Karl Denninger's contention that for GDP to be meaningful, you have to take out at least the government deficit, and probably the total increase of indebtedness economy-wide.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 02, 2016 2:51 PM  

The change occurred once Ag & Cu stopped being a brake on money supply growth.

It was at that point where a dollar borrowed & spent was deemed to accrue directly to total wealth in existence.

Just as insurance companies are happy to see hospitals lard patients' bills (because they're paid on a cost-plus basis, economists cheer (and rationalize) when legislators & executive branch crooks flood money onto make-work and bridges to nowhere.

A secular decline in interest rates enabled the insane addicts' criminality. Borrowing our way to Nirvana was open policy.

It's the largest game of chicken ever imagined, when anyone with an IQ above 105 knows it's unsustainable, but Mr Market has taught them that putting off the inevitable means fabulous wealth for the bold.

Blogger Noah B July 02, 2016 2:51 PM  

IF you want to produce a GDP gain of ~5%
THEN why couldn't you just increase .gov spending to $300 billion for FY 1981?


Why be satisfied with only 5% growth, though? Why not really boost government spending and shoot for 5000% growth?

Anonymous krymneth July 02, 2016 2:51 PM  

"Money" is a fantastically useful abstraction, but I think even people with economics PhDs can very easily forget that it is an abstraction. For questions like "How will all these immigrants impact my country?", I think it's way more effective to discard the monetary abstraction and consider the question purely from a more general "wealth" ("things people want") perspective.

Money leads this analysis astray not just because of the specific issues with GDP but just in general all monetary transactions appear to be equally balanced, since the debits precisely equal the credits. If you consider transactions purely monetarily it's not possible to distinguish good ones, that bring a net benefit to society, from the bad ones.

So, the question of "how will spending 80 billion dollars on refugees impact my economy" is, extraordinarily badly. First of all, in terms of opportunity cost, that's 80 billion dollar's worth of labor and materials that is basically being poured in a hole, from a cold, rational perspective. Whatever it is that that labor and materials could have produced instead won't exist. And secondly, the society is actively feeding and "training" people who will try to further harm the society.

Thus, my use of the word "extraordinarily". Western civilization pours money into a hole with some regularity. In some sense it's not even possible to avoid that; for instance, a business venture that goes nowhere may be in some sense "poured into a hole", but it's still something that we need to do sometimes. But most money poured into a hole isn't spent supporting the people who will destroy you.

I actually don't think GDP is "useless", it's just that it doesn't mean what people tend to think it does. It's like "market capitalization"; it's not a "lie", but it is a fiction and isn't necessarily the one number simple "real value" of the company. They're both indirect measures, not the direct, final word. In this case, the fact that taking in the immigrants boosts the GDP is a demonstration of that. It is quite easy, based on the definition of GDP, to screw with the GDP without bringing any real benefit to anybody.

Anonymous Eric the Red July 02, 2016 2:54 PM  

Mindless more is not better. An increase in quantity (GDP)is not the same as an increase in quality. Duhhh.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 02, 2016 2:58 PM  

Credit growth = debt growth, & debt growth when debt is money = wealth growth.

Wealth represented by debt is entirely dependent upon stable or declining interest rates.

Now that a veritable OCEAN of bonds is in existence, even a small rise in i results in massive losses of bond capital value.

Rates at ZIRP is like hydrogen gas, only a tiny spark will both detonate markets AND send world economies crashing to earth.

Central banks DO NOT have control of rates. They only appear to control the elevator and they're flying into a storm saturated with wind shear.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 02, 2016 3:03 PM  

Money is supposed to represent value created (and only a free market transaction can honestly establish it.)

The notion that banks can create money is perhaps the most pathological economic notion ever, followed closely by the view that factors of production can be rationally allocated in the absence of market prices.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 02, 2016 3:12 PM  

GDP stands for Godless Die Penniless, Gadarene-Derived Porkbellies and Grim Debt Peonage.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 02, 2016 3:16 PM  

...and let's not forget Graduates Debate Percentages!

Scholastics have nothing on us.

Anonymous Takin' a Look July 02, 2016 3:16 PM  

OT (or not) Juncker wrings hands over alien leaders from other planets worrying about the state of the EU.

My french is rusty, but yes, he definitely is referring to planets, not countries.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-KVAXY7Gs&feature=youtu.be

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 3:17 PM  

42. Noah B July 02, 2016 2:51 PM
Why be satisfied with only 5% growth, though? Why not really boost government spending and shoot for 5000% growth?



this isn't even implicit in the formula ... it's EXPLICIT.

the 'reason' why ((( they ))) don't do this has nothing to do with GDP concerns, it's the externality that if ((( they ))) got that blatant about what ((( they ))) were doing, the Goy wouldn't put up with this stupid shit and wey'd go back to Gold or Silver or ... you know, the Government issuing it's own money, even if it was fiat.

as i said, you can generate any GDP gain you want. you could theoretically just pay every federal employee a hundred million a year. there's a little under 3 million civil servants. that's an additional $300 trillion added to GDP at the swipe of a pen.


you start playing games like this and the Goy start balking at being the Greater Fool.

gotta keep them Greater Fools coming back, you know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6exo00T5I&t=1m24s

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 02, 2016 3:42 PM  

Mando, I see you understand very well how the "free market" works in the "free world" owned by (((the usual suspects))). The thing which in a way is most amazing is how the goyim fall for the same damned old scam over and over and over again. It's all just variations on the tiresome old tune: shit is gold and gold is shit. Even so, the average Joes (Sixpack and Mainstreet alike) keep on picking up those spray-painted turds and stuffing them into their pockets. To take VD's post as the perfect example: (((Lügenpresse))) has been repeating this particular variant on the same old lie (migrant invasion = prosperity) for decades running now. Do the Josefs of Deeutschland turn off das radio und das TeeVeee? Nein! Der Geldene Dindu its dere to be worshipped, so it musst be true! There is no news in truth, and no truth in the news. Wachet auf!

Blogger bob k. mando July 02, 2016 3:52 PM  

51. Gen. Kong July 02, 2016 3:42 PM
Mando, I see you understand very well



well, i don't see how that could be, Gen. Kong. i never even went to college. how could i possibly grasp the implications in the formulas they wave around in my face?

congratulations on the promotion, by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlSQAZEp3PA


oh, God. this is the Jockey ad that ran as youtube promo just before the above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvbjLCUheQs

Blogger Noah B July 02, 2016 3:53 PM  

Only two possibilities, both treasonous:
1) Elites hate the people and don't want them to prosper
2) Elites know the economic models they claim to believe in are completely phony.

Blogger Desillusionerad July 02, 2016 4:15 PM  

@49 - Takin' a Look

The gloablist conspiracy is more complex than we thought:)

Anonymous BGKB July 02, 2016 4:20 PM  

oh, God. this is the Jockey ad that ran as youtube promo just before the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvbjLCUheQs

Why are faggots still adopting niglets, when social workers are willing to give them white kids now?

Anonymous Moonbear July 02, 2016 4:26 PM  

@49 Probably misspoke, the guy is a known drunk. I wouldn't put much stock in this.

Blogger toadbile July 02, 2016 4:43 PM  

Keynesian economic, like anthropogenic global climate change, is contrived science-ish sounding tripe invented to justify bigger government and socialist policies.

Anonymous andon July 02, 2016 5:17 PM  

OT: could you get away with "kikeservative" for these bill kristol types?

Anonymous EH July 02, 2016 5:21 PM  

My comment on reverse game theory (a.k.a mechanism theory, how to design a ruleset to make rational "players" end up doing what you want) disappeared, it had been comment 40. (I assume it's just a glitch, it didn't seem like the sort of thing to delete, being on-topic and complimentary.) Metrics such as GDP are at the heart of such directed rulesets - change the metric and you change how people will try to game it.

In economic theory, they assume rational players, but people really decide on the basis of emotion, which means different techniques need to be used in setting up situations to influence what people do. Vox being an expert in game design and persuasion, I thought he might find it an interesting enough topic to be worth teaching, perhaps something for a future Brainstorm session.

A way to use emotion to effectively change the rules is simply to associate the old figure of merit with something the audience hates, e.g. associate GDP with government and mass immigration, which may be perfectly truthful, as in the OP. No doubt there are other ways of constructing metrics and rules or changing the perception of existing metrics or rules to achieve ones ends, and it would be hugely useful to know more about such techniques.

Anonymous SciVo July 02, 2016 5:46 PM  

OT: Australia just had its parliamentary elections, and... I don't get it. I'm just completely unfamiliar with their politics. Can someone please explain this? I hardly even care about left/right; I mostly want to understand in terms of the authoritarian/libertarian, nationalist/globalist, and populist/elitist axes, and all I can tell so far is that Nick Xenophon is an awesome name.

Anonymous SciVo July 02, 2016 6:04 PM  

The reason I ask is because I predict that the Five Eyes will develop a very tight, solid trade pact under Pres. Trump, so I'm paying more attention to the smaller three now.

Blogger The Other Robot July 02, 2016 6:10 PM  

“Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability). If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women.”

Whoa. I did expect science to be so sexist.

Blogger The Other Robot July 02, 2016 6:13 PM  

@60: Could this be the main point?

Whoever takes power after this election is going to do so knowing that almost a third of all Australians voted for someone other than Labor or the Coalition.

They are sick of the bi-factional ruling party?

Of course, Australia is also behind the times, according to other reports I have seen because they have not yet embraced men in women's toilets and bestiality.

Blogger The Other Robot July 02, 2016 6:20 PM  

@62: Of course, they conclude that it's because women give up more easily.

Anonymous BGKB July 02, 2016 6:23 PM  

Of course, they conclude that it's because women give up more easily.

When I tell women the best way to get a raise it to apply to work somewhere else they don't believe me.

OT:gays sue Christian dating site to allow gays,(((lawyers))) made $450,000, the plaintiffs only made $9,000?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/1/christianmingle-loses-lawsuit-must-now-include-gay/

Blogger residentMoron July 02, 2016 7:12 PM  

@63

Australians are real men. Only embrace other men in men's toilets ...

Blogger Were-Puppy July 02, 2016 8:20 PM  

muslim invaders + mexican invaders = GDP*

*Glorious Diversity Powers

OpenID simplytimothy July 02, 2016 8:26 PM  

"Is it good for the Nation?" is the question to ask. The economy is of secondary importance.

Blogger Lobo Util July 02, 2016 8:56 PM  

I wonder what passing a law that prohibited any welfare, assistance, or medical help for the first 10 years after someone moved to this country would do for GDP?

Anonymous andon July 02, 2016 10:18 PM  

69. Blogger Lobo Util July 02, 2016 8:56 PM
I wonder what passing a law that prohibited any welfare, assistance, or medical help for the first 10 years after someone moved to this country would do for GDP?


it might be racist

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY July 02, 2016 10:19 PM  

"Is the plan to let in millions of young muslim men into the EU so that they can be used as front line cannon fodder for the next big war w Russia? Someone has to storm Moscow in the winter...."
C'mon, trk. You know that stratergery has always worked in in the past. Just ask Napoleon, or Hitler, or ....

"Instead of spending money on wedding cakes, more taxes go out to support not just Latrina's 21 illegitimate crackbabies, but now ZIKA anchor babies that will cost taxpayers more than their birth weight in gold every year they are alive." - BGKB
Hater.

"When I tell women the best way to get a raise it to apply to work somewhere else they don't believe me."
They won't listen to you because you're a male. The Homo bit has nothing to do with it at all. Stiffnecked wenches, the lot of them.

"muslim invaders + mexican invaders = GDP*

*Glorious Diversity Powers" - Were Puppy
HEH.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY July 02, 2016 10:28 PM  

"OT:gays sue Christian dating site to allow gays,(((lawyers))) made $450,000, the plaintiffs only made $9,000?" -BGKB
Class action lawsuits make 'meruca grate !

Blogger Unknown July 02, 2016 11:19 PM  

When the topic of GDP came up in the macro economics class I had last winter, I threw the BS flag immediately when they showed me that government spending is included in its computation. Government spending is assumed to have a multiplier effect, like private investment does, but only to a lesser extent. Left entirely unaddressed in the whole thing is that every penny the government spends must first be extracted from the private sector.
I've been reading Karl Denninger for a while, so I knew that most economic data was cooked, but I knew for certain it was after taking that class, and seeing the irrational assumptions built "economics" at the base level, starting with the rational actor assumption from which all economics assumptions flow.

People are not rational. Observe present day German immigration as proof of that.

Blogger Lazarus July 02, 2016 11:32 PM  

Unknown wrote:People are not rational

Let me see. I have heard that somewhere before......oh ya! The host of this Blog wrote something like people are RATIONALIZERS not "Rational" per se.

Blogger bob k. mando July 03, 2016 12:07 AM  

69. Lobo Util July 02, 2016 8:56 PM
I wonder what passing a law that prohibited any welfare, assistance, or medical help for the first 10 years after someone moved to this country would do for GDP?



we've already explained this.

it would depress GDP because it would act directly to reduce .gov outlays which, as currently calculated, is subtracted directly from the GDP total.

it would also indirectly depress the GDP number because those illegals / legal immigrants who did NOT come into the country would not be counted against an increase in population and thus would not bootstrap the Federal baseline budgeting projections.

it doesn't matter how many native American citizens would then have an opportunity to get jobs.

it doesn't matter what any deleterious knock on effects there might be.

the GDP formula does not make such considerations and meeting the planned ~2% GDP growth year after year is all the Federal Reserve "cares" about.

Blogger bob k. mando July 03, 2016 12:17 AM  

73. Unknown July 02, 2016 11:19 PM
People are not rational.



fuck that, you missed a chance to go full shitlord on these morons.

1. economists assume that people are "rational actors".

2. the current GDP formula is obviously insane, irrational and incompetent

3. yet it is accepted as the common tool to compare the strength of various economies against each other and over time

4. therefore, it is absurd for economists to assume that people are "rational economic actors" when economists have proven that they themselves are irrational, QED.


you can see why dealing with the college edumacated gives me a headache.

Blogger Rusty Fife July 03, 2016 12:17 AM  

simplytimothy wrote:"Is it good for the Nation?" is the question to ask. The economy is of secondary importance.

Clearly it is good to alloy the native redneck whites with all those dark handsome foreigners./s

Blogger Rusty Fife July 03, 2016 12:19 AM  

Lobo Util wrote:I wonder what passing a law that prohibited any welfare, assistance, or medical help for the first 10 years after someone moved to this country would do for GDP?

I believe that racist law is already on the books. It doesn't apply to refugees; which all immigrants are.

Blogger Lazarus July 03, 2016 12:33 AM  

bob k. mando wrote:4. therefore, it is absurd for economists to assume that people are "rational economic actors" when economists have proven that they themselves are irrational, QED.

Hang on there, Bob K.

I consider myself a very rational actor economically, and I think most non-economists are. But they can only act rationally in relationship to the knowledge they possess.

For instance, I know that interest rates are going negative and will never rise. Do I start investing in the rigged stock market?

No. I count my shekels and divide by how long I think I will live and if it is close enough, who cares?

When you start to go either the state will look after you or someone else will spend your money.

Or you will die in the gutter. So what. You daid. Don't care.

THAT'S rational.

Blogger seeingsights July 03, 2016 12:49 AM  

Libertarians who favor immigration make a faulty assumption: that immigrants are basically similar to the home population. That assumption is part of their purely theoretical models that support immigration.

But empirically, immigrants differ from the home population in important ways such as education, skills, use of government services, and crime.

The terrorists attacks of 9/11 were done by immigrants. What were the costs of the attacks? Internet sources say approximately $40 billion in insurance losses. Then there is the loss of economic productivity from those who were killed. Another cost is government expenditure on homeland security. Also two wars, the cost of which is $5 trillion--though
I admit that one could make a strong argument that one of them, with Iraq, was a war purely of choice.

So a few immigrants have the US economy at least $3 trillion dollars.







Anonymous Fed Up Aussie July 03, 2016 1:16 AM  

@60: In Australia there are two houses. In the lower house, which the article is talking about there are 150 seats. A party needs 76 to rule outright. If no party makes 76 (hung parliament) they can try to form a minority government with a minor party or parties to make 76. The Prime Minister is the leader of the ruling party in the lower house. There are 3 major parties in Australia. The Liberals, Labor, and the Nationals. Liberals in Australia are a little more right wing than Labor and so more in accordance with the traditional usage of the word 'liberal' than the bastardised American usage.
The Labor party, AKA the ALP, was originally formed by unions.
The Nationals are a country party and have been in a coalition with the Liberals for decades. The leader of the Nationals becomes the deputy PM if the Coalition wins.
The big parties are both open borders, globalist, populist but run by elites and socially progressive. The Nationals are kind of nationalist and less socially progressive but will stay in the Coalition to keep Labor from winning and doing too much damage.
All major parties are willing to sell our land and assets to the Chinese while importing hundreds of thousands of muslims.

To understand our current clusterfuck you really have to understand some recent political history. John Howard, a previous Liberal PM, ruled from 1995 to 2007, making him equal longest serving PM. He lost in 2007 merely because after so long people wanted a change.

In Australia people do not vote for the PM. They vote for the party (or, supposedly, their local member) and the PM is the leader of the winning party who can be replaced any time the party votes to do so.

Kevin Rudd became Labor PM in 2007 but then was stabbed in the back by Julia Gillard who became PM. At the 2010 election we had a hung parliament just like now. Labor retained office with the support of four independents (not affiliated with a major party). Two of these independents were in rural seats where the majority of their supporters would have preferred Liberal but the bastards betrayed their own electorate. Gillard was then ousted by Rudd who lost the 2013 election to Liberal Tony Abbott. Abbot is a Christian and a decent bloke with fuck all charisma in front of a tv camera. He is also socially conservative.

If a sitting member of parliament retires we hold a by election for that electorate. There was a by election in a year or two ago and (((pollsters))) said liberals would lose it because Abbott was so unpopular according to the (((media))). Abbott was dumped in favour of a possibly jewish banker and smug arsehole named Malcom Turnbull who had led the Liberals after Howard retired following the 2007 loss but Turnbull was dumped after the 2010 loss and Abbott, despite winning in 2013, was dumped to bring Turnbull back.

Which brings us to the present. Turnbull is greedy, smug, unlikeable and untrustworty.

His opponent, Bill Shorten, is a former union leader with the personality of a cardboard box and is similarly untrustworthy and unlikeable. Both are probably globalist hacks. Both are elites. Turnbull is a former investment banker with money stashed offshore and Shorten has never held a real job in his life but repeatedly married into money.

People are sick off the major parties and their bullshit but have very few alternatives in the lower house. You can only vote for those in your electorate. For an alternative to win they need the highest percentage in that electorate. I would have loved to vote for an independent but as a farmer I have to focus on my number 2 priority (no anti immigration candidates in my electorate) which is stopping the radical left Greens holding the balance of power like in 2010, where they fucked up things so bad farmers are committing suicide or just walking off their land and letting the banks have it because there is too much red tape to make a living now. If I and a lot of others voted for the better alternative to the National candidate it would split the vote enough for the Labor candidate to win.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie July 03, 2016 1:19 AM  

Continued...

Because we face a hung parliament the balance of power will rest with independents. They agree to support either the Coalition or Labor in return for getting some of their own legislation through. I don't know much about Nick Xenophon but he is rather libertarian I think. Bob Katter, who holds a seat in Far North Queensland is Nationalist. Two of the other independents are former Liberal party members so should also side with them. The Greens will side with Labor, meaning the Libs will likely have a slight majority. The Greens are open borders useful idiots of the elites. Rich kids who think they are intellectuals.

Australia has a preferential voting system which means close seats can take weeks to be sorted out. Counting has now ceased until Tuesday while postal votes are sorted.

What really matters in Australia is the upper house. There are 12 senators from each state and 2 from each territory. This is where minor and protest parties come to the fore. Senate voting is more complicated and takes longer to sort out so results are slower.

Usually only half the senate is up for releection every 3 years but this election was a because of a double dissolution of parliament. According to our Constitution if an impasse is reached by the houses in passing legislation there are a number of steps to try and resolve it with the final being the Governor General (Queen's representstive) dissolving both housing and an election being early. Double dissolution is only supposed to apply to Supply (funding) bills but somehow seems to apply to everything now. In 1975 the radical left Labor leader Gough Whitlam was tossed out following a double dissolution and was not reelected.
The Senate refused to just rubber stamp lower house bills and due to the preferential voting system was full of minor parties elected on less than a percent of the vote.

Turnbull, arrogant prick that he is, refused to negotiate on certain bills and believed if he forced a double dissolution he would get more seats and a less hostile senate. It appears to have backfired.

The senate is where nationalist parties can make a mark. Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation, was Australia's first anti immigration politician back in the 1990s but her party was torn in pieces and she was gaoled on trumped up electoral fraud charges. She and her party are back and appear to have done very well, despite the (((media))) saying they had no chance. One Nation is nationalist and the most populist anti immigration party.

Conservative parties such as the Christian Democrat Party and Family First appear to have done well too.

The senate votes won't be fully counted for 2 weeks and a lot of it is up in the air still.

At this point the likely outcome is the Coalition will form government with the help of a few nationalist leaning parties and then will have to negotiate with nationalist and conservative upper house parties. This will probably be unworkable and lead to another election. If that happens expect a swing to more independents in the upper house.

Already there is talk among the Labor party of ousting Shorten and some suggestions Turnbull too may be in trouble.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie July 03, 2016 1:25 AM  

Blogger at the first of my two comments in reply to @60. Here it is again, split in two. First half:

In Australia there are two houses. In the lower house, which the article is talking about there are 150 seats. A party needs 76 to rule outright. If no party makes 76 (hung parliament) they can try to form a minority government with a minor party or parties to make 76. The Prime Minister is the leader of the ruling party in the lower house. There are 3 major parties in Australia. The Liberals, Labor, and the Nationals. Liberals in Australia are a little more right wing than Labor and so more in accordance with the traditional usage of the word 'liberal' than the bastardised American usage.
The Labor party, AKA the ALP, was originally formed by unions.
The Nationals are a country party and have been in a coalition with the Liberals for decades. The leader of the Nationals becomes the deputy PM if the Coalition wins.
The big parties are both open borders, globalist, populist but run by elites and socially progressive. The Nationals are kind of nationalist and less socially progressive but will stay in the Coalition to keep Labor from winning and doing too much damage.
All major parties are willing to sell our land and assets to the Chinese while importing hundreds of thousands of muslims.

To understand our current clusterfuck you really have to understand some recent political history. John Howard, a previous Liberal PM, ruled from 1995 to 2007, making him equal longest serving PM. He lost in 2007 merely because after so long people wanted a change.

In Australia people do not vote for the PM. They vote for the party (or, supposedly, their local member) and the PM is the leader of the winning party who can be replaced any time the party votes to do so.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie July 03, 2016 1:26 AM  

Second Part

Kevin Rudd became Labor PM in 2007 but then was stabbed in the back by Julia Gillard who became PM. At the 2010 election we had a hung parliament just like now. Labor retained office with the support of four independents (not affiliated with a major party). Two of these independents were in rural seats where the majority of their supporters would have preferred Liberal but the bastards betrayed their own electorate. Gillard was then ousted by Rudd who lost the 2013 election to Liberal Tony Abbott. Abbot is a Christian and a decent bloke with fuck all charisma in front of a tv camera. He is also socially conservative.

If a sitting member of parliament retires we hold a by election for that electorate. There was a by election in a year or two ago and (((pollsters))) said liberals would lose it because Abbott was so unpopular according to the (((media))). Abbott was dumped in favour of a possibly jewish banker and smug arsehole named Malcom Turnbull who had led the Liberals after Howard retired following the 2007 loss but Turnbull was dumped after the 2010 loss and Abbott, despite winning in 2013, was dumped to bring Turnbull back.

Which brings us to the present. Turnbull is greedy, smug, unlikeable and untrustworty.

His opponent, Bill Shorten, is a former union leader with the personality of a cardboard box and is similarly untrustworthy and unlikeable. Both are probably globalist hacks. Both are elites. Turnbull is a former investment banker with money stashed offshore and Shorten has never held a real job in his life but repeatedly married into money.

People are sick off the major parties and their bullshit but have very few alternatives in the lower house. You can only vote for those in your electorate. For an alternative to win they need the highest percentage in that electorate. I would have loved to vote for an independent but as a farmer I have to focus on my number 2 priority (no anti immigration candidates in my electorate) which is stopping the radical left Greens holding the balance of power like in 2010, where they fucked up things so bad farmers are committing suicide or just walking off their land and letting the banks have it because there is too much red tape to make a living now. If I and a lot of others voted for the better alternative to the National candidate it would split the vote enough for the Labor candidate to win.

Anonymous SciVo July 03, 2016 1:40 AM  

Thank you Fed Up Aussie, that helps a lot. I'm looking forward to those final tallies, since it sounds like I'll get to see a good ally's politics shift in a healthy direction.

Blogger Groot July 03, 2016 1:49 AM  

Just in time for July 4th: Columnist says it's time baseball ditches 'God Bless America'

Gersh Kuntzman. Heh, heh. He said "Kuntzman."

Anonymous Rub July 03, 2016 2:13 AM  

Don't forget Howard lost his seat as sitting PM. And the bastard was the one who pushed the 19996 firearms laws through, by telling the states they wouldn't get funded if they didn't comply.
Give him his due, he was an expert politician.

Anonymous Eric the Red July 03, 2016 6:40 AM  

An award-winning economist mocks free trade...
Ha-Joon Chang - Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JDJIW80jbM

Blogger American Spartan July 03, 2016 6:46 AM  

Hey Fed Up Aussie how will this election effect gun rights?

Anonymous Takin' a Look July 03, 2016 8:40 AM  

@ Fed Up Aussie

I second SciVo, thank you.

Blogger Rusty Fife July 03, 2016 8:48 AM  

seeingsights wrote: Another cost is government expenditure on homeland security. Also two wars, the cost of which is $5 trillion--though

Nope. That $5Trillion added to the GDP. It made the US richer. Same with the $40billion in new construction in downtown NYC.

Cleary, you haven't embraced the true genius of the GDP calculation.

Broken Borders Fallacy FTW!

Anonymous The Ultimate Shitlord July 03, 2016 9:31 AM  

GDP is really only a measurement of transactions that take place and does not in any way measure anything meaningful.

So by bringing in 3rd world savages, printing more money and going further into debt they can sell you this genocide project as "good for the economy" as long as you buy into the idea that bigger GDP = good rather than grasping the truth, that GDP alone does not actually mean anything.

Cui bono. The end goal is the same, which is a rootless mongrel network that the (((slavemasters))) can rule over.

Anonymous God Hates Cucks July 03, 2016 10:02 AM  

Because refugees and dark skinned people in general have lots of kids, they are hoping that mass immigration will solve the countries declining population problem. Even if they have to spend a little money now, they hope in the future it will pay off with demographics.

The thing to notice, though, is that all these migrants that are supposed to help save our birthrate problem have one thing in common: they haven't been poisoned with feminism.

Blogger David-2 July 03, 2016 2:29 PM  

Migrant center in Dusseldorf torched by its own grateful residents because they didn't get a Ramadan wake-up call.

I'm looking forward to their integration into German society and the copious taxes from many productive years of their skilled labor being used to support German social programs for Germans, as their society ages.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie July 03, 2016 10:33 PM  

@87: The right to bear arms is not a recognised right in Australia. To understand gun control in Australia you have to understand the historical frame. Australia, during the colonial times, was wild and dangerous, far more than the wild west ever was. The population at the time was also majority white and in touch with nature. Guns were needed for protection against bushrangers, aboriginals and aggressive animals, as well as for hunting. The soldiers who stormed the beaches of Gallipoli, who made the last successful calvary charge in history, who were the first to stop Rommel's advance across Africa, who fought the Japanese in the jungles of SE Asia grew up with guns. To them it was another tool. Those days are gone. Those men are dead.

The bushranger period ended in the 1880s. Even then the big cities were relatively safe. For nearly a hundred years Australia was a peaceful, prosperous white country with the majority becoming more and more urbanised and guns being less and less an everyday thing.*

During the 80s there was a bikie war culminating in the Milperra massacre where seven people, including a fourteen year old girl, died from gun shots.
In 1997 there was the Port Arthur massacre, a possible false flag where a severely mentally disabled man in a small Tasmanian town shot 47 people with a bolt action rifle and then charged police with a knife whereupon he was shot dead.

In response our Liberal Prime Minister, the traitorous cuck John Howard (who also dramatically increased immigration), introduced severe gun control laws with the backing of the Opposition (Australian Labor Party). Most Australians are city dwelling latte sippers who would faint at the sight of a gun and were happy to bend over. There were massive peaceful protests, mainly from inbred racist redneck farmers. There were only two parties who even paid lip service to giving a shit about guns. The Nationals, who are in Coalition with the Liberals, and champion farmer's owning basic hunting rifles and shotguns for pest control and the Shooters Party who support sport shooting and hunting.

Up until recently the statistics appeared to show that gun control worked. Australia was held up as an international example. If you looked closely though you could see that the violence dropped prior to the gun laws and was dropping before Port Arthur, which was an isolated incidence. Arguing dialectic, especially when you rely on the correct understanding of statistics, against rhetoric is a losing proposition though.

However, muslim immigration has led to an increase in gun violence. First we have the two successful terrorist attacks* involving guns. The first was the Lindt cafe seige in Sydney where a refugee held a cafe up with a shotgun and then shot the manager before the cops stormed the place and killed him and a hostage. Following that a fifteen year old school boy, the son of moderate muslims, went down to his local mosque, got a pistol, and killed a police IT worker coming off his shift before two cops shot the muzzie.

There has also been a massive increase in gun crime, mostly by muslims shooting their own cousins following a falling out in a criminal gang in Western Sydney. A couple of innocent bystanders have been killed as well as some muzzies. All this is changing public sentiment toward firearms, at least in NSW. There is a growing realisation that not only do we need guns for protection against criminals but that we may need to retake this country from the muslims before we all end up praying to a pedophile.

Of interest is that two years ago there was a Senate inquiry (like a congressional inquiry) into gun violence. The members actually ended up disagreeing and two reports were issued. The official report said guns are bad but the dissenting report said guns aren't the problem, but arseholes with guns are. It was a surprise and caused a bit of controversy.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie July 03, 2016 10:34 PM  

Back to now and we have it likely that in both houses of parliament the balance of power will be held by minority parties. The Greens are radical left, anti gun, hippie arseholes. They will work with Labor. Bob Katter is a country bloke who no doubt loves guns. He will work with Liberals. Nick Xenophon and his team are somewhat libertarian but I don't know where they stand on guns. I am not sure about the other independents in the lower house either.

In the Upper House the Shooters party is now the Shooters, Fishers and Farmer's party and have usually been about stopping the Greens doing too much damage but a lot of their voters have moved to One Nation. Stopping runaway immigration and getting rid of muslims is more important than getting a few more concessions on which firearms we can own. One Nation's stance on gun control is do not change current laws (maybe strengthening home defence laws) but focus on stopping criminals getting guns, keeping troublesome immigrants out, and doing more to stop illegal guns entering Australia. The other minor parties in the upper house (Greens aside) are neutral on guns. Since we do not have the second amendment gun policy is not usually a big issue for most people or parties.

In sum I cannot predict precisely what will happen because we don't even know who yet will form government in the lower house and who exactly will be in the upper house. Its likely One Nation has 3 seats and maybe 4. The Greens though look likely to have just as many. I expect gun laws will remain unchanged but there will be a renewed focus on targeting illegal guns as a concession to One Nation. It will be the next election in 3 years (discounting the one we may get soon which will essentially be a reelection) that will see a massive swing toward nationalism and an uncucking of gun laws. I interpret Saturday's vote as part of the growing nationalist trend in Australia.


*There were sporadic incidents in the outback, as late as the 1930s, when Aboriginals still speared whites.

*Australia's first muslim terrorist attack was in 1915 when two muslims went allah ackbar in Broken Hill, a mining town in the desert (and birthplace of BHP) and killed 7 people before the locals grabbed their guns and, side by side with the police, took them down.

Anonymous Ricky July 06, 2016 9:41 PM  

Does anybody want to take respond to this guy? :
https://www.facebook.com/archdukedostuff/videos/1316448935049630/

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts