Daily Digest

Image by kellywritershouse, Flickr Creative Commons

Daily Digest 10/23 - The Student Debt Crisis Is Worsening, Is Peak Russian Oil Production Overblown?

Tuesday, October 23, 2018, 9:30 AM

Economy

The Student Loan Debt Crisis Is About to Get Worse (Sparky1)

Student loans have seen almost 157 percent in cumulative growth over the last 11 years. By comparison, auto loan debt has grown 52 percent while mortgage and credit-card debt actually fell by about 1 percent, according to a Bloomberg Global Data analysis of federal and private loans. All told, there’s a whopping $1.5 trillion in student loans out there (through the second quarter of 2018), marking the second-largest consumer debt segment in the country after mortgages, according to the Federal Reserve. And the number keeps growing.

The nation’s student loan debt crisis, mapped (jdargis)

More than 44 million Americans owe a total of $1.5 trillion in student debt, making it the second-largest liability on the national balance sheet. A generation ago, student debt was a relative rarity, but for today's students and recent graduates, it's a central fact of economic life that we don't know much about. Mapping Student Debt is changing that. The maps below show how borrowing for college affects the nation, your city, and even your neighborhood, giving a new perspective on the way in which student debt relates to economic inequality.

Billionaires v teachers: the Koch brothers' plan to starve public education (blackeagle)

“We walked outside the Capitol Building, and we looked at each other, and said, ‘What now?” said one of the women, Dawn Penich-Thacker, a mother of two boys in public school and a former army public information officer. “We had been fighting this for four months. We realized that there’s something we can do about it. It’s called a citizens’ referendum. We said, ‘Let’s do it.’”

How Russia’s “influence operations” targeted the midterms (and how they still do) (tmn)

According to the FBI affidavit that led to the indictment of Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova last week, Khusyanova managed the financing of the organizations under the Project Lakhta umbrella and funneled $35 million to various entities to fund social media and propaganda operations. These activities in the US included covering the expenditures of "activists," purchasing advertisements on social media platforms with faked US identities, operating proxy servers in the US, and "promoting news postings on social networks."

Longing for Closure (Bob W.)

Columnists on both sides are trumpeting their analyses of the charges and hearings as proving one of those points of view. They don't.

Some Dems are talking about impeaching the judge. That will only make sense after they produce some hard, corroborated evidence to support one or more of the allegations. (Though as Congress proved with Clinton, they can impeach for anything.)

The Trump Bump in Stocks Is Weakening (jdargis)

Concerns about higher interest rates, Mr. Trump’s trade policies and slower economic growth outside the United States have weighed heavily on stocks this month. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is down 5 percent in October and sits 5.6 percent below its record high in September.

OPEC+ To Extend Its Oil Cooperation Agreement (Michael S.)

According to Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, OPEC and its allies are aiming to cut an ‘open-ended’ cooperation deal to help control global oil supply

Are Claims Of Peak Oil Production In Russia Overblown (Paul D.)

Arguably, Russian oil production co­mes not due to the government’s policies, but actually despite them. Therefo­re, if the country chooses to embrace modern principles of state regulation and opens its oil and gas industry to foreign competition, domestic output levels will almost certainly be free to continue to grow, and quite significantly.

Carbon Capture: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Climate Change (Paul D.)

Nevertheless, “the reality of this is that it’s like a major war. The next 20 years are going to be pretty bad, from a climate perspective,” Aines said, mirroring the findings of the latest IPCC report: that any increase in global temperatures will only worsen the impacts from extreme weather patterns already being felt. And while Aines still believes that “we’re going to figure things out,” what’s now clear is that we only have a dozen or so years to actually do so.

Climate change prompts a rethink of Everglades management (Paul D.)

The Everglades watershed once included more than 1 million hectares of wetlands, sawgrass plains, and tree islands across southern Florida, but agriculture and human settlement have shrunk that habitat by half. Phosphorus from agricultural runoff has killed sawgrass that thrives in the Everglades’ naturally low-phosphorus conditions. In its place, dense cattail habitats have sprung up, choking off water access for animals and birds. Eighty plant and animal species in the larger region are now threatened or endangered.

Gold & Silver

Click to read the PM Daily Market Commentary: 10/19/18

Provided daily by the Peak Prosperity Gold & Silver Group

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

22 Comments

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2037
Migrant Caravan as a Weapon

So a "migrant caravan" of 5,000 people (or is it 14,000?) crosses from Honduras in to Guatamala.  This is 2,000 plus miles from the USA.  A crowd with families walks at 2 mph x 10 hrs/day, they are still 100 days away from El Paso, TX.  The migrant caravan comes to the forefront of the news reports 2 weeks before the US elections.

Did this migration arise spontaneously or was it consciously intitiated for a specific purpose by specific people?

Who organized this?  Who is feeding them?  Who provides fresh water?  Are they being given rides in trucks and trains headed north?  Is someone passing out cash?  Why are people wearing green vests observed at the front of the caravan?  Who do these organizers work for?

I was first introduced to the idea that mass migrations could be deliberately initiated and used as a weapon by Kelly Greenhill.

Here, in a book review, the major premiss is outlined.

Weapons of mass migration: forced displacement, coercion, and foreign policy, by Kelly M. Greenhill

In defining and analyzing “coercive engineered migration” (CEM), Kelly M. Greenhill is the first political scientist to rigorously theorize migration as a strategic option for states in competitive interaction. Greenhill’s analysis thus provides a theoretically novel and empirically rich synthesis of migration theory and international relations (IR). The case studies cover Cuba, Kosovo, Haiti and North Korea, and an appendix lists all identified CEMs since the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. Building on scholars such as Wiener and Rosenblum, Weapons specifies an IR-security view of migration, with the expulsion and “push” of migratory flows towards target states as “weapons” most appealing to those facing powerful foes and having few other choices. This is particularly true when the foe/target is democratic, since liberal states are more vulnerable to “migratory coercion” due to institutions protecting human rights and refugees. For a liberal democracy, not taking the “bait” of potentially destabilizing refugee inflows incurs “hypocrisy costs” (a promising but under-theorized element of Greenhill’s model). Greenhill’s model helps explain a lingering puzzle in IR: democracies’ relative tendency to lose small wars. Democracies faced with destabilizing refugee flows are often internally divided, unable to staunch the tide or keep migrants from reinforcing and intensifying internal conflict.

1.  Hypocricy Cost

A democracy that refuses to accept refugees is vulnerable to "hypocricy cost."  Both internal policies and international treaties commit modern democracies to grant asylum to refugees.    ("You say you value human life but look at this heart breaking picture of a sweet little migrant boy dead on your beach because you would not admit him and his family.  You have revealed yourself to be a monster and a hypocrit!")

2.  Dividing the population of the "target state."  Response to the migrants is used as a wedge to separate the "we should accept them" faction from "we must seal the borders" faction.

Similar to any wedge issue (that the oligarchy doesn't actually care about one bit), like kneeling for the national anthem or prayer in schools, the wedge is used to accentuate conflict between factions and influence elections and public policy.

German girls welcoming refugees some 5 years ago.  Teddy Bears and water bottles where handed out to arriving refugees in the early weeks.

Kind hearted (GREEN Meme) Swedish Girls welcome refugees.

And on the otherside, GREEN attempts to portray those who wish to defend their borders as nazis, right wing extremists, hypernationalists, and racists.

What is not acknowledged by GREEN is that there are indeed powerful reasons to regect massive immigrant floods.

So internal politics in the target nation is affected.  I don't follow European politics, but I understand that Merkel and various Eurpean leaders are currently being taken down over this issue.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2888
Re: Migrant Caravan as a Weapon

...and as a distraction.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
Lifeboat ethics and illegal immigration

http://www.woodpilereport.com/html/index-550.htm

Thousands—the number keeps changing—of Hondurans, et al, have marched into Mexico intending to enter the US as refugees with their national flags at the fore. Mexico attempted to stop them by handing out 45-day visitor permits and providing police protection. Material assistance is coming from locals, the International Red Cross and other NGOs. Cash handouts have been recorded on video. The Spoor of Soros hangs heavy in the air. 

Compared to the tens of millions of illegal squatters already here, a few thousand more is trivial. But this march looks too much like the invasion it's always been. Perhaps we're to believe it was mere chance several thousand people decided, on the same day, to walk from Central America to the US border. Or we could believe the 'caravan' was created and coached to influence the mid-term elections.

It's a gamble. Those who organized and support this invasion army have created a very visible clog in an otherwise permeable membrane. If they get the optics they're trying for, real action to control the border may rise to the top of the list. Hah! I can't believe I said that. 

For the record, on Wednesday the 17th, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said,

 For those attempting to illegally enter as part of any ‘caravan’, please know we will enforce our border security laws and that the United States will use every available measure to prevent your illegal entry

Yeah right. We're entertained, are we not? How shall they parse this? What "available measure" shall we believe Ms Nielsen is considering other than more of the same spineless capitulation and weasel words and promises? Lethal force? Batons and tear gas? Fat chance. As always, it'll be resettlement with all expenses paid and apologies for any inconvenience. 

When DC fails to turn them back it will make an irrefutable fact obvious to all: DC won't protect the border, hasn't protected the border, and never will protect the border, which is criminal dereliction if not purposeful betrayal*. This is not a victimless crime. Decades of mass infiltration have created another set of refugees, namely, displaced legal residents of the, formerly our, southwestern states. Because that's what invasions do. 

The media is already sentimentalizing this 'caravan'—the word they're looking for is 'army'—as pitiable victims whose hope for a better life is about to be crushed by heartless guys in uniform. But that's the whole point, Sparky. Car thieves just want a better life too. 

Enough theatre. DC should either step up and do the job or step aside for those who will. A five thousand-strong column of self-supplied volunteers could be assembled in an afternoon and as many more as is needed thereafter. Swear them in, slink away and be amazed.

As for the "refugees", they're mostly military age men , fit and well fed. They found their way here, they can find their way back. The families they left behind need them. We don't.

I'll end this with a thought from Francis Porretto at Liberty's Torch:

 Americans legally within the borders of the United States possess a right to life that the police cannot arbitrarily override. That’s not the case for persons attempting to invade our country against our laws and the laws of civilized nations generally. 

* US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4

Matt Holbert's picture
Matt Holbert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 3 2008
Posts: 147
All English...Propaganda?

It's interesting that the German and Swedish signs are in English. Why not the language of the refugees?

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 279
solutions
sand_puppy wrote:

So a "migrant caravan" of 5,000 people (or is it 14,000?) crosses from Honduras in to Guatamala.  This is 2,000 plus miles from the USA.  A crowd with families walks at 2 mph x 10 hrs/day, they are still 100 days away from El Paso, TX.  The migrant caravan comes to the forefront of the news reports 2 weeks before the US elections.

Did this migration arise spontaneously or was it consciously intitiated for a specific purpose by specific people?

Who organized this?  Who is feeding them?  Who provides fresh water?  Are they being given rides in trucks and trains headed north?  Is someone passing out cash?  Why are people wearing green vests observed at the front of the caravan?  Who do these organizers work for?

great questions, and i'm sure you're correct in what your questions are getting at.

but the solutions are simple and obvious, we shouldn't have to even be concerned with such questions.

if i may quote doug casey from a recent interview (doug's words may seem harsh to some, but i believe he's completely correct):

 

How do we balance those two things when it comes to large-scale migration?

DC: I’ll give you the ideal solution. Completely non-violent, and zero cost. The whole question of migration would be academic if only two simple principles were observed.

Number one: Don’t have a welfare system to draw in parasites, people that don't support themselves. Especially people from sh*thole countries—different race, religion, language, and customs—whose main skill appears to be getting into the welfare system. The ideal would be to abolish state assistance for everyone, of course, but that’s politically impossible at this point.

Number two: All property, and by that I mean streets, bridges and parks—everything—should be privately owned, with strictly enforced property rights. Unowned property invites squatters and vagrants. Tourists and invited guests are a completely different story.

If everything were 100% privately owned, and there was no welfare system, there wouldn’t be a migrant problem. Many other problems would disappear as well. I realize it’s academic to propose such a solution. The society is too thoroughly corrupted, and socialism and Cultural Marxism are too ingrained to expect a change. Change is unlikely until the whole mess collapses.

 

Barnbuilder's picture
Barnbuilder
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 7 2014
Posts: 103
The Invasion will not be stopped

 

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/10/100-isis-terrorists-caught-in... Actions speak louder than words. One party wants to let everyone in and reduce us to a third world hell hole while the other wants to build a wall that they just can't seem to get done. Even if Trump deployed the military they will not be allowed to use deadly force to stop this. The invaders will be interned and then slowly released into the population. After watching the disembowelment of Europe the last few years, this seems eerily the same. Some folks with big money and bigger plans are at work here and those plans are not for the benefit of the average John and Jane Doe.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 922
I suspect you refer to the fall to the Vandals.

My understanding of the fall of the ªoman empire is as follows.

After the Romans had completely destroyed the infrastructure of the Ostrogoths through taxes (much as our Banana wars and school-for-the Americas did for central America), the Atila the Hun conquered Germanic tribes' land through offering each conquered tribe the choice of slavery, or conquest of the next goth tribe, followed by freedom.

So at that point, you had the refugees. Just like the Hondurans who are fleeing the double whammy of US-supported terror government, and gangs.

So then the Vandals got as far as northern Italy, with a plea, please help us... we are starving. And the Roman Senate voted to tell them come a little ways into Italy, and we will feed you. Then the Senate voted to give the contract to feed them to a Senator who was expected to embezzle most of the money.

He embezzled it all.

So the Vandals came on down through italy, and even into Rome, looking for the promised food and eating everything they could find. And Rome, which ran on slave power, experienced the loss of the slaves, who suddenly realized that they would starve, and left with the Vandals.

And the now-composite tribe ran all over Rome looking for food, and finding only gold and slaves...

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 855
Barnbuilder
Barnbuilder wrote:

 

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/10/100-isis-terrorists-caught-in... Actions speak louder than words. One party wants to let everyone in and reduce us to a third world hell hole while the other wants to build a wall that they just can't seem to get done. Even if Trump deployed the military they will not be allowed to use deadly force to stop this. The invaders will be interned and then slowly released into the population. After watching the disembowelment of Europe the last few years, this seems eerily the same. Some folks with big money and bigger plans are at work here and those plans are not for the benefit of the average John and Jane Doe.

I don't doubt your thoughts. If they get here, they will be get in. If so, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the concept of the USA. It will prove that our federal government is completely illegitimate. Then what?

blackeagle's picture
blackeagle
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2013
Posts: 229
Terrible comments, indeed.

Doug Casey's interview is terrible. A welfare system is designed to make a society more egalitarian by giving relief to the people in need. It is also an attempt to balance against corruption and hoarding by the elites. But when people relay the message that all welfare is useless and people do not deserve it, then the worst is to be expected in such a society. Because don't forget that no welfare applies first to the citizens of the country where the poor are considered persona non-grata. Looks to me one of the last steps for the .01% to grab the last bits.

I agree that Sand Puppy questions deserve some attention, but rather than hammering on the already affected people, why not turn our attention to the real causes? some examples:

- Climate change.

- Overpopulation.

- Destruction of natural habitats.

- US foreign policies in the middle-east and latino america (This country is not the only one mess maker, but without any doubt the worst).

- National and international laws designed to favor the 0.1% at the expense of everyone else.

- Channeling of most world resources toward a few countries (Western countries mostly - USA, Canada, France, UK, Germany, etc.).

- etc. We can cite many more causes of what we see.

I am myself an immigrant. I left my country because of corruption and political turmoil. I found in Canada a place where resources are plentiful, life is easy and a political system not too bad. Things are changing (Much slower than in the US, though). After 25 years in Canada, I can say that the west is now eating itself from inside. The mechanism that supported the west is now collapsing: cheap energy, easy resources, etc... The periphery has been (or almost) depleted, that now we (I say "we" because after 25 years, I am now part of this system) are scraping the bottom of the pot. Add to that the refugees who have nothing left to scrape and seek better conditions where life is looking pretty.

Unfortunately and realistically, there is no workable solution. Considering what we are, our deepest nature, no socially and ethically fair solution can be accepted and deployed. We are headed for big trouble.

Considering the point of view of the earth, this is just another wave of mass immigration: many of them occured in the past. Example, when europeans invaded the americas and killed the native americans en masse. Fortunately today, the new waves are not as deadly as before. So, we have a chance to adapt (One of the messages of this site). We have got so much from these countries, that we may consider giving back a bit? unless our egoism has no limits.

Also, privatizing all public domains is something to avoid at all cost. This is a sure way to lose a big chunk of your freedom. Public owned streets ensure free moves for everyone. When private, hehe, good luck to you to move from A to B, without trouble. Beside the loss of freedom, consider this scenario:

"Public" property privately owned with strictly enforced property right: this is one more step into slavery. Let me explain with the example of streets.

A public street has two main characteristics: open to everyone, and maintenance costs shared by the citizens of the municipality.

A privately owned street is a different animal, very different. Who will own it? You? I? Most probably not because a private street is a wheelbarow full of trouble. So, the average Joe will stay far from it. I live on a private street and I can guarantee you this is the #1 trouble in our neighborhood. Instead, the street will be owned by corporations or the 0.1%. Streets have no commercial value (You can buy my street for 1$ and you never pay property taxes). These powerful owners will buy them buy hundreds or thousands Kms or miles, will manipulate the lawmakers to give them the right to collect "taxes" for street maintenance. Their will will become law. One way for them to make money on a recurrent basis. You know the telephone company business model (Subscription: this tells you nothing?). Is that what you want? Another way for the rich to pump populace's blood? Same reasoning for bridges, which are more strategic than streets (You have more streets choices, than bridges choices).

So, Doug's comments are just a relay for the messages of the ones hiding in the dark and pulling the strings. The west eating itself from inside...

 

 

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
Well worth a 13 minute listen

The sociopaths among our ruling elite are intentionally using immigration as a weapon to destroy our culture and our resistance to their evil schemes. They want a weak and pliable body of serfs to do their bidding without complaining or revolting. Of course in the US that means our guns MUST be outlawed and removed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=793&v=tl0Bo4GKQ-U

Exhibit #1.  Paul Krugman drops the mask and reveals the sociopathic elite's real views and plans:

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2888
Irony

Is it not ironic how the ones running the system and professing to be "enlightened" turned out to be the biggest racists of all?

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2037
What does it mean to be "red-pilled?"

I followed the link thc0655 put up and found another one of interest.

First, a criticism.  He could have explained it well in 5 minutes.  The first 4-5 minutes are recommended.

To be *RED PILLED* refers to recognizing that there is a gap between:

  • what we are told is true (by the elites who own the media) and
  • what we see and understand for ourselves.

We come to understand that there is an immense gap between these.  

1.  A classic example is that the US economy is doing wonderfully.  Globalization has incresed wealth.  For the 1% elite and their 20% professional-servant class (doctors, accountants, lawyers, bankers) this is probably true.  But the 80% comprising the working class recognize urban decay, homelessness, widespread poverty.

2.  Another is that having several million middle-eastern and African immigrants move into europe in one year enriches europe with diversity.  But people living in those cities notice that the immigrants came in much faster than they could assimilate causing them to concentrate in isolated ethnic ghettos with high crime and welfare costs and pent-up rage.

3.  Another is that seeing tall buildings flying apart in their entirety in downtown NYC is perfectly normal and should not be reviewed with curiosity or skepticism.

4.  Another is that "I am financially secure as I will be getting good pension when I retire at age 65."

I believe that when a person disparages "conspiracy theories" what they are actually saying is that they do not yet observe this gap between and the elite media's story and their on-the-ground experience.  Or perhaps, that they are still committed to defending the correctness of the dominant narative.

They have not been "RED PILLED."

Video of a time-traveler from the past returning to future Earth and getting RED PILLED.

 

 

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 855
thc0655 wrote: The
thc0655 wrote:

The sociopaths among our ruling elite are intentionally using immigration as a weapon to destroy our culture and our resistance to their evil schemes. They want a weak and pliable body of serfs to do their bidding without complaining or revolting. Of course in the US that means our guns MUST be outlawed and removed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=793&v=tl0Bo4GKQ-U

Exhibit #1.  Paul Krugman drops the mask and reveals the sociopathic elite's real views and plans:

 

 

"The power they still have will go away..."  We are already seeing it and witnessing the consequences as this once great nation continues its downward spiral.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
In case there are a few here who have been living in a cave...

Unfortunately (from my perspective), most people choose the blue pill. 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5687
libertarians solve migration?

I totally disagree that "libertarian wonderland" would, just by its libertarian wonderfulness, solve the migration problem.

Most migrants are looking for work, but at a higher pay rate than they can get in their country.  I have extensive experience living outside the US.  My (professional) friends from outside the US look enviously at the pay differential for the same job they are already doing and that's why they consider migration.

Example: An RN in my country of choice makes about $12k per year. That's a good middle class salary, and the life is far from sucky. But if they move to the US, do the same job, that salary jumps to between $50k-$80k.  Higher cost of living for food & shelter?  Sure.  But if you want an iphone and a car, those prices don't change - they are international.  I know an RN who was considering leaving the home country to become an "au pair" in the US.  Taking care of children in the US is more attractive - economically - than working in the OR in a higher end hospital back home.

These people in foreign countries have friends who have done it before.  They talk to each other.  They do the math.  They know what the opportunity is.  And they migrate in response to that opportunity.

That's all migration really is - better pay for the same job you do at home.  Or maybe - better pay for a lower-end job than you do at home.  In the above case, it is better to toss your 4-year degree on the shelf and become a babysitter in the US than to work in the local hospital where you save people's lives every day.

My friends considering migration do NOT expect to go on the dole upon arriving in the US.  They are NOT driven to migrate by the promise of the fantastic social safety net, or the unowned open spaces where they can camp.

Try living outside the country and making friends with people considering migration.  Perhaps then maybe you can come up with a solution to the migration issue that makes sense.  The US is attractive not because of "our freedoms", or "our huge giveaways", but because you can get 5x the salary for doing the same job you already do at home.

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 279
keep it local
blackeagle wrote:

Doug Casey's interview is terrible. A welfare system is designed to make a society more egalitarian by giving relief to the people in need.

terrible in what way?

is it terrible to want to live in a decent community of people one gets along with, without unwanted invaders? what's so terrible about that?

as far as a welfare system, sure, if you want to give your hard earned money to strangers from other countries, you are perfectly welcome to do so, just don't try to rope the rest of us into such a scheme, who don't want to participate.

blackeagle wrote:

It is also an attempt to balance against corruption and hoarding by the elites.

that's certainly what the elites want you to think, but i'm not convinced of that - if anything, welfare keeps the lower class dependent, and keeps the middle class down and giving what little they make to the overlords, and the elites will find a way to avoid contributing to the scheme.

blackeagle wrote:

But when people relay the message that all welfare is useless and people do not deserve it, then the worst is to be expected in such a society.

i wouldn't say welfare is useless, i'd go further to say it's downright harmful, it sets a bad example (moral hazard) and creates a bad precedent: that it's ok for the government to take what you earned, and hand it to someone else (after pocketing some themselves, of course).

welfare is different from charity - i do give money, willingly, and when it seems right to do so, not because of someone else's edict.

blackeagle wrote:

I agree that Sand Puppy questions deserve some attention, but rather than hammering on the already affected people, why not turn our attention to the real causes? some examples:

- Climate change.

- Overpopulation.

- Destruction of natural habitats.

yes of course these 3 issues are big problems, but i'm not going to focus on them, for the simple reason that you aren't going to fix them, no matter how much you focus on them.

but nature will fix them, it will restore balance after oil has peaked, and human population starts to fall.

blackeagle wrote:

 

I am myself an immigrant.

likewise. my family came here when i was little, endured hardship, got some help from an extended network, didn't get much in the way of handouts, just mostly hard work.

it's sad to see people from other countries coming here and expecting, nay, demanding, hand-outs, from strangers they don't know.

there's a huge difference between people who come wanting to work and to better themselves, and those who just want to sponge off the system.

people who do come looking for honest work, i do welcome them!

blackeagle wrote:

Unfortunately and realistically, there is no workable solution. Considering what we are, our deepest nature, no socially and ethically fair solution can be accepted and deployed. We are headed for big trouble.

socially and ethically fair solution? that's actually pretty easy: i'm in charge of me, you're in charge of you.

that's basic respect for one another.

don't try to force your ideas on me, and i won't try to force my ideas on you. deal?

 

blackeagle wrote:

Also, privatizing all public domains is something to avoid at all cost.

maybe you don't have parks, bridges, and streets that were once fairly prosperous but now are turning into homeless encampments and tent cities near where you live, bases for crime and drug use, aggressive panhandlers and petty criminals that encroach onto private property breaking into cars and siphoning your gas.

it must be nice to live in such bliss.

but when a space is "public", that basically means it's an anything-goes zone, no one gets to control it.

it means there's no one to put their foot down, to say enough is enough.

a privately owned commons can work, and will work, among a group of people whose interests are aligned.

i'm talking about on a fairly small scale, like in an intentional community, which is what i'm interested in, really; i don't harbor any illusions that the nation can be saved.

in the coming times, i strongly suspect that the best solutions we find, will be localized ones.

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 279
sounds good to me, dave
davefairtex wrote:

I totally disagree that "libertarian wonderland" would, just by its libertarian wonderfulness, solve the migration problem.

Most migrants are looking for work, but at a higher pay rate than they can get in their country...

what libertarian are you referring to, dave?

fyi, doug casey is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

davefairtex wrote:

My friends considering migration do NOT expect to go on the dole upon arriving in the US.  They are NOT driven to migrate by the promise of the fantastic social safety net, or the unowned open spaces where they can camp.

Try living outside the country and making friends with people considering migration.  Perhaps then maybe you can come up with a solution to the migration issue that makes sense.

if all immigrants were like your friends, dave, then no solutions would be required, as there would be no problem.

i hope your friends do decide to immigrate here, it sounds like they would be an asset to society.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5687
anarchists?

Boy its tough to tell libertarians from anarchists.  Talk of "strong property rights" (an anarchist wants property rights??  Do anarchists even want a legal system???) and eliminating social programs letting "the marketplace" fix the migration problem all on its own - the overlap between the two groups on this topic seems to be 100%.  I hope you can understand my confusion.  :)

So let me ask you this.  You sound like someone who is aware of supply and demand.

Let's say there are 1 million nurses in the US.  Another 1 million arrive from overseas.  What would the salary of nurses be, all else remaining equal - including the number of nursing jobs - when there are now 2 million nurses willing to work for the same number of nursing jobs?

Supply rises, demand remains the same.  What happens to price?

Its all fun and games until its your job that gets hit by "migration supply."  And then you end up with an "emerging market" wage...

That doesn't matter if you are rich, of course.  Its actually the perfect system, if you have a ton of money already.  You want an infinite supply of well-educated migrants to keep those wages low at the company you own.  As always, there are winners and losers in every system, and a system that makes sure to have an effectively infinite supply of labor definitely optimizes the system for maximum profit for companies and their owners.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 922
But does demand remain the same?

That new nurse has to feed her family too. That means she has to buy stuff. Demand therefore goes up.

The key here is that when you block the border, you empower criminals (both legal and illegal) to thrive.

Moreover, when you block the border to laborers but not corporations shipping goods, the product (manhours) will still be traded, but you have just empowered the free entities -- the corporations -- to charge a premium to both laborer and consumer. Therefore, you in fact are driving DOWN wages on both sides of the border.

I'd rather say open the border to consumers and laborers, and then charge a premium against the corporations commensurate with the difficulty of crossing the border.

Better yet, since it is hard to figure that one out, simply tax wealth at a fixed percentage.

But you still have to put the bell ON the cat.

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 279
welfare state is not compatible with open borders
davefairtex wrote:

Boy its tough to tell libertarians from anarchists.

not really - libertarians believe in "limited" government, for some arbitrary definition of the word limited, which will differ from one libertarian to another. they do tend to believe in government, strong property rights, and a constitution.

anarchists believe in no rulers, no one has the right to initiate force against another human being. and yes, ruling over another person is an act of force / aggression.

davefairtex wrote:

Talk of "strong property rights" (an anarchist wants property rights??  Do anarchists even want a legal system???)

yes, generally speaking, anarchists want property rights - property rights, sound money, and respect for other persons, are essential pillars of liberty.

you mention a "legal system", but rights do not come from a legal system - a legal system merely is a set of rules that attempts to codify, enumerate, and describe, certain rights that all human beings have.

legal systems are flawed, just like the human beings that wrote those rules, some do a better job to elucidate and protect human rights, than others do.

davefairtex wrote:

So let me ask you this.  You sound like someone who is aware of supply and demand.

Let's say there are 1 million nurses in the US.  Another 1 million arrive from overseas.  What would the salary of nurses be, all else remaining equal - including the number of nursing jobs - when there are now 2 million nurses willing to work for the same number of nursing jobs?

Supply rises, demand remains the same.  What happens to price?

price would go down, of course.

but that's just life - conditions change, supply and demand change, technology chages. those of us who want to thrive, need to learn to adapt, to move to where there's more demand, to learn new skills that are in demand.

davefairtex wrote:

Its all fun and games until its your job that gets hit by "migration supply."  And then you end up with an "emerging market" wage...

That doesn't matter if you are rich, of course.  Its actually the perfect system, if you have a ton of money already.  You want an infinite supply of well-educated migrants to keep those wages low at the company you own.  As always, there are winners and losers in every system, and a system that makes sure to have an effectively infinite supply of labor definitely optimizes the system for maximum profit for companies and their owners.

when you say "Its actually the perfect system", which system are you referring to?

it's a natural function of human beings to go where they are paid better, to hunt where buffalo are more abundant, etc - it's got nothing to do with any system.

if you're cleverly trying to suggest that i support peoples' freedoms to go where they choose is because i'm rich and want employee wages to go down, that wouldn't be an accurate guess. i will always choose to support maximizing human liberty.

if you're confused by my earlier comments about invading migrant hordes, the issue is simply this: a welfare state is not compatible with open borders - you have to pick one or the other, and i'd prefer the path of liberty (open borders) to the path of bondage (welfare state).

if a country attempts to have both open borders and a welfare state, that's basically opening your wallet to the whole world - pretty soon you'll have an empty wallet. and a first-world-going-on-third-world country like the usa, who can't take care of its own people or maintain its own infrastructure, can't afford that.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5687
opening wallets

reflector-

if a country attempts to have both open borders and a welfare state, that's basically opening your wallet to the whole world - pretty soon you'll have an empty wallet. and a first-world-going-on-third-world country like the usa, who can't take care of its own people or maintain its own infrastructure, can't afford that.

Well I totally agree with that.

But your original statement - the genesis of this thread - was that by getting rid of the welfare state, and by strongly enforcing property rights (and not having any "unowned land"),  that would immediately solve the migration problem.

I still stand by my response: it wouldn't fix the migration problem at all.  We would end up paying less in social programs, for sure, but the migrants would still come, by the tens of millions.

when you say "Its actually the perfect system", which system are you referring to?

it's a natural function of human beings to go where they are paid better, to hunt where buffalo are more abundant, etc - it's got nothing to do with any system.

if you're cleverly trying to suggest that i support peoples' freedoms to go where they choose is because i'm rich and want employee wages to go down, that wouldn't be an accurate guess. i will always choose to support maximizing human liberty.

Eh, I was referring to the system where migration of labor had no restriction.  That optimizes things for company owners and rich people.  They are the clear winners, along with the migrants, of course.  The citizens of the country-being-migrated-to are the losers.  Their pay goes down.

As always, I'm just pointing out winners and losers in a given system.  You may champion "human liberty" which sure sounds awesome (I'm all for liberty, along with apple pie and Mom), but what I see - in the cold light of the spreadsheet - is wage debasement of the citizens resulting from open borders and unlimited migration.  I'd phrase it this way: a non-citizen's "freedom to migrate" ends at the citizen's country's doorstep.

And that's why labor made sure to reduce legal immigration from 1920s-1968.  They did the math, figured out who won and who lost, and came to the appropriate conclusion.  That's why Obama was tough on migration too.  Its only in the upside-down world of "Everything Trump Does is Bad" that everyone gets all confused, and the Democrats start acting like open borders would be good for their voters.

Seriously though, thanks for the breakdown on anarchism vs libertarianism.  They are hard for this novice to tell apart from a distance.  I had a similar experience talking to some math guys the other day: they went into detail about the grand struggle between the Baysians and Frequentists...knock-down-drag-out affairs, by all accounts.

 

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 279
a different perspective
davefairtex wrote:

Eh, I was referring to the system where migration of labor had no restriction.  That optimizes things for company owners and rich people.  They are the clear winners, along with the migrants, of course.  The citizens of the country-being-migrated-to are the losers.  Their pay goes down.

dave, your perspective seems to be, that because you earned $X this year, that means that you are entitled to earn $X next year, even if it means imposing an armed guard at the border, to prevent someone who might compete with you, from doing so freely.

using government force to attempt to prevent competition, seems to be something of a racket.

my perspective is, that i have the right to engage in voluntary commerce in goods or services, with whomever i wish, regardless of what side of the border they happen to be on at this point in time.

i find a better approach, philosophically, is to improve myself, my skillset, my way of doing business, instead of focusing on the competition and trying to prevent them from competing.

davefairtex wrote:

And that's why labor made sure to reduce legal immigration from 1920s-1968.  They did the math, figured out who won and who lost, and came to the appropriate conclusion.  That's why Obama was tough on migration too.  Its only in the upside-down world of "Everything Trump Does is Bad" that everyone gets all confused, and the Democrats start acting like open borders would be good for their voters.

i don't get the impression democrats especially care what's good for their voters, they just want to get elected. they seem to believe more migrants = more people voting democrat.

davefairtex wrote:

Seriously though, thanks for the breakdown on anarchism vs libertarianism.  They are hard for this novice to tell apart from a distance.  I had a similar experience talking to some math guys the other day: they went into detail about the grand struggle between the Baysians and Frequentists...knock-down-drag-out affairs, by all accounts.

de nada!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments