"Mexamerica, Here We Come"

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
No, Americans didn&#39;t flood london to force them to help. But the great poverty in European cities during industrialisation led to unions and the welfare state to help the masses. The rich thought of the poor as some underclass that didn&#39;t deserve THEIR help. Why should THEY help the poor? It&#39;s just the same now. Americans and Europeans are thinking why should THEY help them? Because they are humans for fuck sake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Okay, Mr. Humanitarian, let&#39;s pretend that your idea is a good one for a moment. How the fuck are foreign countries going to give these countries aid? How are we supposed to remotely modernize eight million countries? Have you seen Iraq lately? For all the Iraqis know, our main purpose for taking over was to liberate them, was to give them a better life: how did they return the favor for apparent generosity and concern of America and the U.K.? Bombs. Bombs, AK rounds, and all things associated with resistence. That&#39;s what we would get for being "humans for fuck sake."

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
I embrace those that make their trek here legitimately, not those who violate our borders and reside here without going through the proper legal channels.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Canadians do it all the time.

Anyways, I agree in principle. Buchanan&#39;s slant on this is different altogether.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
Canadians do it all the time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Canadians I would make an exception for, because their society reflects ours in many respects. A high inflow of illegal Canadians would pose no threat to America&#39;s integrity. They would integrate with little to no difficulty. However, Mexican culture is radically different from ours and Mexico is a seriously corrupt nation, and so comparing their immigration to a high rate of Canadian immigration is inherently flawed in this regard.

[nature of reality]

Holy shit&#33; I disagree with everyone in this thread&#33;

All sides agree that influx will be harmful to americans. Capitalistic Pig is a protectionist, and this upsets him. G. Adams is a masochist and this excites him. Both are based off a faulty premise. The conceptions of mercantilistic thought were exploded about 300 years ago by a fellow named Ricardo his law of comparitive cost.

Lets suppose there are two products of the 1st order p and q.

One american worker can create 3 p OR 5q.
One mexican worker in the same amount of time can make 4p OR 6q.

Now, as you can see, to have ANY mexicans working making p causing those employeeing them as such to take a loss. Niche markets emerge, and the net production increases.


And this is nature of capitalism... The cooperation of the weak and strong in this instance is mutually beneficial, as both parties grow wealthier from this division of labour. Dog eat dog does not occur in capitalism or in dogs.

This is just elemtary Division of Labour. What, do you think it works for factories, or nations, but when you have two different races of peoples it instantly stops working?


Seriously though guys, this stuff was destroyed 300 years ago. Its sad its still held onto.

[The Fyrdman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
No, Americans didn&#39;t flood london to force them to help.  But the great poverty in European cities during industrialisation led to unions and the welfare state to help the masses.  The rich thought of the poor as some underclass that didn&#39;t deserve THEIR help.  Why should THEY help the poor?  It&#39;s just the same now.  Americans and Europeans are thinking why should THEY help them?  Because they are humans for fuck sake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Okay, Mr. Humanitarian, let&#39;s pretend that your idea is a good one for a moment. How the fuck are foreign countries going to give these countries aid? How are we supposed to remotely modernize eight million countries? Have you seen Iraq lately? For all the Iraqis know, our main purpose for taking over was to liberate them, was to give them a better life: how did they return the favor for apparent generosity and concern of America and the U.K.? Bombs. Bombs, AK rounds, and all things associated with resistence. That&#39;s what we would get for being "humans for fuck sake."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

They return the favour by attacking you? Well maybe they think that&#39;s how your culture thinks gratitude should be shown, as you did kill 10 000 in &#39;liberating&#39; their country.

How are you and I meant to help them? I dunno, maybe end the military budget and spend it on beneficial things, like developing the infrastructure of the third world, supporting their education services till they run well on their own, end third world debt etc

But the over population of the West wouldn&#39;t affect the rich particularly, it would be again like the agrarian-urban move. All the poor moved to the cities where the rich were, so the rich bought up the land of the leaving poor, which gave them huge estates, and then they left the cities. So all you&#39;d have is rich American&#39;s leaving for the beaches of Brazil or South Africa, which would now be a lot freer of poor people. The overcrowding of the cities, the unemployment, the death of the welfare state and so on would lead to a revolution, peaceful or violent depends on the situation.

[nature of reality]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How are you and I meant to help them? I dunno, maybe end the military budget and spend it on beneficial things, like developing the infrastructure of the third world, supporting their education services till they run well on their own, end third world debt etc<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

We can help them and ourselves by reducing protectionist bullshit. We both get richer that way.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The overcrowding of the cities, the unemployment, the death of the welfare state and so on would lead to a revolution, peaceful or violent depends on the situation. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Now the error in your reasoning is twofold: 1 is that your are holding onto the Iron Law of Wages, which was also discredited with the subjective value of labour, 2 is using historical evidence to try and create a economic theory, as though it was a posterii science. Its not. Its a priori, simply because you can&#39;t replicate situations and isolate variables, and a 1 time experient with multiple variables (such as in your case, britain in 1800s) cannot derive absolute principles of economic thought. You could claim the increase of the welfare of the citizenry was due to legislature, i could to technology, and someone else could enter teh Will of God, and none of us could prove each other wrong, as all we have are EVENTS.

So in order to gain knowledge on praexology, or the actions of humans (such as economic) one must use a constant logical line of reasoning from irrefutable premises. I just wanted to get that out, as a lot of stupid arguements between socialists and liberals (in the sense of the word that i am) are repetitive and dull as they center around historical events.

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
One american worker can create 3 p OR 5q.
One mexican worker in the same amount of time can make 4p OR 6q.

Now, as you can see, to have ANY mexicans working making p causing those employeeing them as such to take a loss. Niche markets emerge, and the net production increases.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I commend you for trying to make a point, but don&#39;t try so hard, man: couldn&#39;t you just have said, "Mexicans production rate is higher than Americans&#39;?" Jesus...

[The Fyrdman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)


We can help them and ourselves by reducing protectionist bullshit. We both get richer that way.



Now the error in your reasoning is twofold: 1 is that your are holding onto the Iron Law of Wages, which was also discredited with the subjective value of labour, 2 is using historical evidence to try and create a economic theory, as though it was a posterii science. Its not. Its a priori, simply because you can&#39;t replicate situations and isolate variables, and a 1 time experient with multiple variables (such as in your case, britain in 1800s) cannot derive absolute principles of economic thought. You could claim the increase of the welfare of the citizenry was due to legislature, i could to technology, and someone else could enter teh Will of God, and none of us could prove each other wrong, as all we have are EVENTS.

So in order to gain knowledge on praexology, or the actions of humans (such as economic) one must use a constant logical line of reasoning from irrefutable premises. I just wanted to get that out, as a lot of stupid arguements between socialists and liberals (in the sense of the word that i am) are repetitive and dull as they center around historical events.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

My theory is based on only a few things.

That human&#39;s primary drive is survival.

That opening up all borders would lead to mass migration to the developed world.

There would not be enough jobs to cover a significant proportion, and that in turn would drive down wages.

The discontent caused by the about two would threaten the survival of a majority, who would then force, by peaceful or violent means, a system that would cater for all.

It has happened before, in different circumstances yes, and in ones that won&#39;t repeat in exactly the same way, but the crucial points will.

and if your in support of reducing trade barriers, then we&#39;re in the same boat for now.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I do want to see the fabric of your nation, and mine, and everyone&#39;s torn asunder. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


So now the Communists want to create a revolution by destroying the world first?

Now we know the REAL agenda of those student protestors....they want to turn the great cities of the world - New York, Shanghai, Paris, Berlin, London - into terrifying World War 2 warzones.

They want to force a revolution by turning the world into a chaotic warzone first.


Except for 1 problem. If that happens - if the leftists win and the industrial world turns into a pot of war and fear and destruction - it&#39;ll take another 200 years to repair.


As factories are destroyed and farms are burnt to the ground and people massacred by "Revolutionaries", the damage done will take centuries to repair.

As 700-metre skyscrapers topple to the ground, and entire cities are crushed amongst violence, and Communists vie for power against the Nazis, we could very well end up a world torn between extreme ideologies.

Europe will be ruled by the Communists. America by the Fascists. Asia by the Imperialists. Africa by the anarchists.



G Adams, why don&#39;t you stop blowing shit from your ivory tower and go live in Zimbabwe if you desperately want to experience the live of poverty? Or alternatively Tianjin should be good enough for your stuffy Imperial European ass....I have some friends there you&#39;d like to meet. They can introduce you to poverty.

(Of course, I know that you&#39;ll never do it. You&#39;ll probably continue to protest during the day, while going to a comfortable home at night watching TV while kids starve).

[The Fyrdman]

As soon as I finish my degree I intend to pack off to South America to work as a journalist. Sadly you need a degree to be taken seriously in academic circles. Just look at Jane Goodall, thought she was just a stupid little girl playing with monkee&#39;s because she didn&#39;t have an academic background, now her work is the basis for all chimp studies.

I never said I wanted to destroy cities, I never said I wanted violent revolution only. I would prefer peaceful change, but that depends on the reaction of those with power to the mass movement.

do you know what a nation is castille? It&#39;s not the cities or towns, or roads or rails etc A nation is group of people who define themselves in opposition to other&#39;s. British. American. Chinese. On and on. I want to get rid of that mentality. I want people to see humans instead of nationality.

[dalin]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)

Ethnically and racially, this means an America that is no longer a First World country. Third World people of color will be the majority in two decades. Americans whose forefathers came from Europe, 90 percent of the population in 1960, will be a shrinking minority by 2040. For not only are the birth rates of white Americans lower than those of immigrants, the new immigrants will be from the Third World.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Just wanted to touch on this before reading the rest of the thread. Um, I thought the "World" of a country was decided along economic, not ethnic, lines?

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)


So now the Communists want to create a revolution by destroying the world first?

Now we know the REAL agenda of those student protestors....they want to turn the great cities of the world - New York, Shanghai, Paris, Berlin, London - into terrifying World War 2 warzones.

They want to force a revolution by turning the world into a chaotic warzone first.


Except for 1 problem. If that happens - if the leftists win and the industrial world turns into a pot of war and fear and destruction - it&#39;ll take another 200 years to repair.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

They have to destroy the old world in order to usher in the new. Whether through politics, revolution, or war. Any means neccessary.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dalin,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)

Ethnically and racially, this means an America that is no longer a First World country. Third World people of color will be the majority in two decades. Americans whose forefathers came from Europe, 90 percent of the population in 1960, will be a shrinking minority by 2040. For not only are the birth rates of white Americans lower than those of immigrants, the new immigrants will be from the Third World.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Just wanted to touch on this before reading the rest of the thread. Um, I thought the "World" of a country was decided along economic, not ethnic, lines?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

"Third World" in the article is Pat Buchannan&#39;s shorthand for undermining lesser countries and cultures. His rhetoric has fallen out of popular Conservative circles because immigration has been good to businesses and the economy in general.