Chinese FDI in U.S. Drops 90%: America's Clueless Tech Entrepreneurs

39 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Yes, higher wages would lead to some inflation, but the net effect for laborers would be nil.  It's the wealthy and the freeloaders who would suffer because their income will remain stagnant as they're forced to pay more for goods & services.  Rising wages would achieve the income/wealth equality leftists so love, whereas the leftist plans for open borders and free trade creates massive inequalities.  To wit: Rasmus's economic status means his political opinions on free trade and open borders are entirely self-serving.  It's rather convenient that those opinions can be couched as generosity. 

You got me wrong. Very wrong. 

 

40 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Of course, trade is good, but we must have some rules around it.  Here's an idea: tariffs should be based on inequalities in culture & regulation.  E.g. if the United States values a strong middle class with educational opportunities, upward mobility, reasonable working conditions, and a clean environment, then it should tariff imports from nations that do not provide the same  benefits to their citizens.  E.g. most of SE Asia.  Those of us who make good wages working comfortable office jobs in wealthy cities should be forced to pay higher prices so that those who produce what we consume can have opportunity. 

Ehh... how is this different from welfare state re-distribution? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

You got me wrong. Very wrong.  

You're a businessman who employs people and operates internationally.  That means:
1)  You're sufficiently wealthy to be immune from the crime/unpleasantness of immigrant neighborhoods.  Thus, you suffer none of the ill effects of the globalism you support.
2)  You profit from lower wages, which results from increasing the size of the labor pool, which results from globalization. 

Thus, immigration, free trade, etc are rather convenient positions for you to hold.  For laborers in wealthier nations, these policies have been a disaster.  Where am I wrong?

 

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Ehh... how is this different from welfare state re-distribution? 

Under the current "globalist" paradigm, borders are opened, and all trade is free.  Those who are already wealthy benefit from reduced regulations in foreign countries and reduced wages at home.  Some residents of poor nations benefit - assuming pollution and other problems don't kill them first - but laborers in 1st world countries see a reduction in income, a decrease in job security, and a brutal competition with foreign laborers.  Basically, the wealthy have figured out that if they do politics on a global scale, they can profit by playing populations against each other.  Where the wealthy can't make those numbers work, they offer enough welfare programs to buy votes.  Those welfare programs don't lift people out of poverty though; they're a trap. 

In the long run, this system is a net negative for the world.  Every nation will end up with a handful of incredibly wealthy people, enough professionals to do the "creative" work those wealthy people desire, and a super majority of poor people with little/no opportunity for advancement. Poor nations will rarely, if ever, rise from being colonies because of brain drain into wealthier nations  E.g. the US attracts people from around the world, to the detriment of both the US citizens who built this nation and the foreign countries who lose their best talent. 

Under the system I proposed, countries that have already built technology, a middle class, and a path to success for any citizen willing to work would continue what they're doing.  When two countries operate by the same set of rules (labor laws, environmental regulations, etc) and when additional integration can be achieved with manageable disruption (E.g. NOT the loss of millions of jobs and gutting of industrial base we've seen in the US), then a global integration can be allowed.  Meanwhile, poor countries can use the resources at their disposal to become successful internally.  If they want to do business with us, first they must adopt capitalism, representative government, individual rights, and other Western practices.  Once they've managed that internally and are operating comfortably, we can integrate them into the world economy as mutually beneficial, manageably disruptive arrangements appear. 

In short, the process of global integration should be voluntary and gradual.  It's not the West's responsibility to tell other cultures how to do business, and using our economic weight to force "freedom" on them - at the cost of our own citizens, no less - only makes sense to those who profit from it.  If a country doesn't adhere to our values, we should do business elsewhere whatever the cost.  The inevitable conflict of incompatible cultures (E.g. the Middle East using oil money to export terrorism, and the US constantly disrupting nations to obtain oil) isn't worth it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 1/21/2019 at 4:32 PM, Microbio-glutonist said:

I would agree with you, except, we live in a dynamic political environment, where voters choose to spend rather than save.

The problem is that any progress toward your plan would be met with excessive spending on the part of the Democrats. In previous periods, e.g. Reagan, the liberals spend all savings, plus a factor above that amount toward building additional entitlements. They re-termed the events as "investments," thereby, encouraging the public to vote for further tax increases and spending.  

But Trump is spending a fortune on defense. This may be a good idea but we seem to get a lot less for our defense dollar than Russia or China. Just look at how much they spend versus how much we spend on defense. 

Despite all the talk about the dollar having problems, it is still about the strongest major currency in the world. 

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

https://money.cnn.com/data/currencies/

Edited by ronwagn
added reference
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2019 at 8:29 PM, Boat said:

So if every Republican that had an illegal worker was put in jail for only week there would be little need for wall. The magnet of jobs would be gone

Mommy don't like daddy in jail. The church don't like daddy in jail. Shareholders don't like daddy in jail. Lock-em-up. PS. Would work for dems also. 

Probably you would find even more Democrats in jail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2019 at 2:55 AM, ronwagn said:

Probably you would find even more Democrats in jail.

All the more reason for Trump / republicans to suggest this, no? 

I understand this would fix illegal employment and thereby reduce illegal immigration... And be cheaper than the wall. Can you give me one good reason that Trump is not pushing this suggestion???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 1/25/2019 at 5:55 PM, ronwagn said:

Probably you would find even more Democrats in jail.

My Response: Because it makes too much sense? LOL.

Edited by Microbio-glutonist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

All the more reason for Trump / republicans to suggest this, no? 

I understand this would fix illegal employment and thereby reduce illegal immigration... And be cheaper than the wall. Can you give me one good reason that Trump is not pushing this suggestion???

Good question but he probably does not want to detract from his (and my) fight for a wall. Both are essential IMHO. I think that we may need ankle bracelets for visitors. Too many people want to move here without having to follow the right procedures. Too many want anchor babies. Too many drugs coming over the borders. Way too much money being spent to support illegal aliens already here. 

It would be possible to be even more humanitarian than we already are if we were not only flat broke but very deep in debt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2019 at 11:19 PM, Microbio-glutonist said:

My suggestion is to pursue and prosecute employers. Let them know up front to give them a chance. Then, for the first offense of getting caught employing illegals, fine them $10,000 per employee. The next offense fine them $100,000 each employee. And, finally, on the third strike, they are out. Take away their citizenship and ship them out into exile.

I like the cut of your jib. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites