Why are many Europeans against immigration?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Tubez:

Helmholtz Watson:

Tubez:

Yeah. Totally like you said. I want a direct quote from his saying that attackers isnt at fault otherwise that is hyperbole from you.

Saying that its the Jews fault for the violence and groups of angry people that yell "Hitler" because they didn't denounce the actions of Israel, it is pretty clear to me. I'm not exaggerating anything.

When did he say that its jews fault?! And how can you say its his fault for people being nazis? I didnt know he could control people

Here is a video where a quote is attributed to him that states that the actions towards Malmo Jews is a natural consequence of the actions of Israel.

Helmholtz Watson:

Tubez:

Helmholtz Watson:
Saying that its the Jews fault for the violence and groups of angry people that yell "Hitler" because they didn't denounce the actions of Israel, it is pretty clear to me. I'm not exaggerating anything.

When did he say that its jews fault?! And how can you say its his fault for people being nazis? I didnt know he could control people

Here is a video where a quote is attributed to him that states that the actions towards Malmo Jews is a natural consequence of the actions of Israel.

Can you please link me a source where he says those words since I honestly do not trust youtube videos that claims he said those things and considering when I googled "That the actions towards malmo jews is natural consequence of the actions of israel" only thing I found was that youtube video.

Tubez:

Helmholtz Watson:

Tubez:

When did he say that its jews fault?! And how can you say its his fault for people being nazis? I didnt know he could control people

Here is a video where a quote is attributed to him that states that the actions towards Malmo Jews is a natural consequence of the actions of Israel.

Can you please link me a source where he says those words since I honestly do not trust youtube videos that claims he said those things and considering when I googled "That the actions towards malmo jews is natural consequence of the actions of israel" only thing I found was that youtube video.

That is where I got the quote from. If you notice the Youtube video is not some random persons video, but of RTnews, a Russian news station. Here is there website.

Helmholtz Watson:

Tubez:

Helmholtz Watson:
Here is a video where a quote is attributed to him that states that the actions towards Malmo Jews is a natural consequence of the actions of Israel.

Can you please link me a source where he says those words since I honestly do not trust youtube videos that claims he said those things and considering when I googled "That the actions towards malmo jews is natural consequence of the actions of israel" only thing I found was that youtube video.

That is where I got the quote from. If you notice the Youtube video is not some random persons video, but of RTnews, a Russian news station. Here is there website.

Yeah and if they are respectable they should have a source on that quote in particular when they are the only one claiming he said that.

Tubez:

Helmholtz Watson:

Tubez:

Can you please link me a source where he says those words since I honestly do not trust youtube videos that claims he said those things and considering when I googled "That the actions towards malmo jews is natural consequence of the actions of israel" only thing I found was that youtube video.

That is where I got the quote from. If you notice the Youtube video is not some random persons video, but of RTnews, a Russian news station. Here is there website.

Yeah and if they are respectable they should have a source on that quote in particular when they are the only one claiming he said that.

Ok.... take that up with them. It doesn't occur to me that a Russian news station would have a bias in favor of Jews, but whatever.

I'm always confused about people, from anywhere, complaining about any sort of immigration on the basis that immigrants are stealing jobs, or getting better government benefits, or whatever. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent employment for all. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent welfare for all. It is, at bottom, utter idiocy to take that path. The others, who complain about 'cultural differences' and 'integration' are exactly the same. When people are attacked for being different, or for stealing jobs, or whatever reason, they will group together, and at the same time, such divisions only serve to hold people back from actually fighting for a decent society.

Gracchvs:
I'm always confused about people, from anywhere, complaining about any sort of immigration on the basis that immigrants are stealing jobs, or getting better government benefits, or whatever. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent employment for all. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent welfare for all. It is, at bottom, utter idiocy to take that path. The others, who complain about 'cultural differences' and 'integration' are exactly the same. When people are attacked for being different, or for stealing jobs, or whatever reason, they will group together, and at the same time, such divisions only serve to hold people back from actually fighting for a decent society.

And what about those who think it's silly to let people in when there aren't enough jobs, meaning it will just make more people go on welfare? How do you solve that?

generals3:

Gracchvs:
I'm always confused about people, from anywhere, complaining about any sort of immigration on the basis that immigrants are stealing jobs, or getting better government benefits, or whatever. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent employment for all. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent welfare for all. It is, at bottom, utter idiocy to take that path. The others, who complain about 'cultural differences' and 'integration' are exactly the same. When people are attacked for being different, or for stealing jobs, or whatever reason, they will group together, and at the same time, such divisions only serve to hold people back from actually fighting for a decent society.

And what about those who think it's silly to let people in when there aren't enough jobs, meaning it will just make more people go on welfare? How do you solve that?

Again, 'those people' don't think to demand more jobs. Unemployment rate of 5%? 10%? The answer is to make more jobs. Cut the work week by a day with no loss in pay, this creates an instant opening for more jobs. Hell, in that situation we would see less stuff go to waste because more people have enough money to buy. New technology comes in that will result in lay-offs? Why should it? Lay-offs will mean a fraction of he former workforce will produce a multiple of the former products. Rather, keep the same work-force and lower working hours, or keep the same working hours and just produce more stuff, lowering the price for all, while demanding more jobs in the form of transport, storage, distribution in shopping centres, and so on. Companies complain that it cuts into their profits? Then you have to decide if you want an economy that rationally serves the people, or the profits of investors. I can say where I stand, but it's up to 'those people' to decide if they care about people, or just want an excuse to hate on foreigners.

Gracchvs:
Again, 'those people' don't think to demand more jobs. Unemployment rate of 5%? 10%? The answer is to make more jobs.

That's not always true. For instance building, plumbing and parts of the agricultural sector have become inaccessible due to the pouring in of hundreds of thousands of eastern european immigrants. My uncle, blessed be him for fucking up his education and providing me with constant insights in how the bottom rung lives, worked at an apple orchard, and he was the only Dutchman here. Everybody else was from various eatern European countries.

Now I buy that not every single person there would be replaced by a Dutch worker if they weren't there, but if we're talking dozens of people, there's no denying unemployed people are losing opportunities due to immigration.

Then again, that wave of immigration was particularly fast and unplanned. But it's also destructive; Poland has entire villages without any men in them these days. Nobody's telling me that doesn't have a negative effect on the Polish economy.

Blablahb:

Gracchvs:
Again, 'those people' don't think to demand more jobs. Unemployment rate of 5%? 10%? The answer is to make more jobs.

That's not always true. For instance building, plumbing and parts of the agricultural sector have become inaccessible due to the pouring in of hundreds of thousands of eastern european immigrants. My uncle, blessed be him for fucking up his education and providing me with constant insights in how the bottom rung lives, worked at an apple orchard, and he was the only Dutchman here. Everybody else was from various eatern European countries.

Now I buy that not every single person there would be replaced by a Dutch worker if they weren't there, but if we're talking dozens of people, there's no denying unemployed people are losing opportunities due to immigration.

Then again, that wave of immigration was particularly fast and unplanned. But it's also destructive; Poland has entire villages without any men in them these days. Nobody's telling me that doesn't have a negative effect on the Polish economy.

If the economy produces enough for everyone to get by, then there the solution is to cut working hours, so that everyone gets more time off, and in that time not being worked, to maintain the same level of production, more people have to be hired. Where that isn't possible, for instance because it would result in the mass of the population taking less home, then the answer is to expand the economy: more factories, more orchards, requiring more plumbers, more power generation, more electricians, more cleaners. Export the produce to those countries which are the source of the immigration, construct factories and orchards there with the same working conditions 'at home'.

Again, business wont like it, but then we come up to the question of what matters more, ensuring profits, or providing a decent society and decent world for the vast majority of the population.

Gracchvs:
If the economy produces enough for everyone to get by, then there the solution is to cut working hours, so that everyone gets more time off, and in that time not being worked, to maintain the same level of production, more people have to be hired. Where that isn't possible, for instance because it would result in the mass of the population taking less home, then the answer is to expand the economy: more factories, more orchards, requiring more plumbers, more power generation, more electricians, more cleaners. Export the produce to those countries which are the source of the immigration, construct factories and orchards there with the same working conditions 'at home'.

You can't expand the size of services arbitrarily, because consumption is a given. Supply satisfies demand, but it doesn't generate it. If there's ten plumbers instead of one in the phonebook, I'm still only calling one if the drain is clogged up.

And lack of jobs is not the problem. We're facing a labour shortage and there's talk of going back to a 40 hour workweek from the current 36 one.

However chronic unemployment mostly takes place about the poorly educated. They depend mostly on unskilled labour jobs and are less willing and able to travel. It's exactly those kinds of jobs that are being filled by eastern Europeans these days. You can't walk into a supermarket without finding 2-3 ads by eastern Europeans offering domestic cleaning work, strongly reducing the chances that someone could get by doing that.

The main problem is also the scale. Merely for Polish immigrants to the Netherlands we're talking about 66.600 permanent residents (stay longer than 6 months, in 2011, about 40.000 had stayed for over 6 years) and probably thousands more who don't migrate but move here to work occasionally or don't register. Considering the largest ethnic minority here is only about 350.000 people, that should give an idea just how big and sudden the impact of eastern European immigration is. Unemployment among them is also much higher, with 13% average and 19% for the age group 15-24.

All in all there something to be said in that specific case for job loss and migration being a problem. Now with the EU treaties you can't simply bar or even hinder eastern Europeans from entering, but clearly there's an issue that needs adressing there, especially since linguistic problems are starting to appear with permanent migrants, just like decades ago the groundwork for the spectacular failure of north-african immigrants' integration was laid when they failed to learn Dutch.

Blablahb:

Now I buy that not every single person there would be replaced by a Dutch worker if they weren't there, but if we're talking dozens of people, there's no denying unemployed people are losing opportunities due to immigration.

Actually, there is denying, depending on how you classify losing opportunities.

In certain job sectors and geographical areas, unemployment amongst the native population may well increase. However, the difference for the whole economy seems to be none or insignificantly small. Not least because economic migrants don't only bring labour supply, they also bring demand which more labour is needed to supply.

People who tend to be frequently or long-term unemployed often are so because they are bad workers. One of the bottom lines is that the average Eastern European, migrant worker is almost certainly a better employee than the average Western European, native deadbeat.

Gracchvs:

generals3:

Gracchvs:
I'm always confused about people, from anywhere, complaining about any sort of immigration on the basis that immigrants are stealing jobs, or getting better government benefits, or whatever. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent employment for all. It doesn't occur to them to demand decent welfare for all. It is, at bottom, utter idiocy to take that path. The others, who complain about 'cultural differences' and 'integration' are exactly the same. When people are attacked for being different, or for stealing jobs, or whatever reason, they will group together, and at the same time, such divisions only serve to hold people back from actually fighting for a decent society.

And what about those who think it's silly to let people in when there aren't enough jobs, meaning it will just make more people go on welfare? How do you solve that?

Again, 'those people' don't think to demand more jobs. Unemployment rate of 5%? 10%? The answer is to make more jobs. Cut the work week by a day with no loss in pay, this creates an instant opening for more jobs. Hell, in that situation we would see less stuff go to waste because more people have enough money to buy. New technology comes in that will result in lay-offs? Why should it? Lay-offs will mean a fraction of he former workforce will produce a multiple of the former products. Rather, keep the same work-force and lower working hours, or keep the same working hours and just produce more stuff, lowering the price for all, while demanding more jobs in the form of transport, storage, distribution in shopping centres, and so on. Companies complain that it cuts into their profits? Then you have to decide if you want an economy that rationally serves the people, or the profits of investors. I can say where I stand, but it's up to 'those people' to decide if they care about people, or just want an excuse to hate on foreigners.

Make more jobs? Oh if it were that easy... Lower the work week by one day while keeping the salaries at the same price is suicide. Europe already faces competitiveness issues and your solution is to make the work force even more expensive? Belgium already has the most expensive work force in Europe and we're being told by god knows how many economy related institution (including the EU) to work on that.

And you seem to think an economy can only serve either the people or the investors, i'm not sure to which kind of socialism you subscribe to but ideally you serve both. And that is what many Social Liberal countries try to achieve. If you want to look at countries that only serve investors than look at China. And than compare it to Western countries and you will notice that companies aren't serving only the investors.

And do also note that if companies solely focus on "the people" and tell the investors to fuck off the investors will. And what than? Who will provide the funds for companies to be created or expand? If anything your plan will destroy jobs by the thousands (or millions in large countries)

I know for sure that if i have money to invest and someone would offer me 0.1% return while the other one offers me 5% i'd go for the 5%. And not because "i hate the people" but because darn it i don't want my wealth to decrease because of some socialist idealists. Ideally i'd invest in a decent (ethics wise) company that offers a decent return.

Blablahb:

Gracchvs:
If the economy produces enough for everyone to get by, then there the solution is to cut working hours, so that everyone gets more time off, and in that time not being worked, to maintain the same level of production, more people have to be hired. Where that isn't possible, for instance because it would result in the mass of the population taking less home, then the answer is to expand the economy: more factories, more orchards, requiring more plumbers, more power generation, more electricians, more cleaners. Export the produce to those countries which are the source of the immigration, construct factories and orchards there with the same working conditions 'at home'.

You can't expand the size of services arbitrarily, because consumption is a given. Supply satisfies demand, but it doesn't generate it. If there's ten plumbers instead of one in the phonebook, I'm still only calling one if the drain is clogged up.

And lack of jobs is not the problem. We're facing a labour shortage and there's talk of going back to a 40 hour workweek from the current 36 one.

However chronic unemployment mostly takes place about the poorly educated. They depend mostly on unskilled labour jobs and are less willing and able to travel. It's exactly those kinds of jobs that are being filled by eastern Europeans these days. You can't walk into a supermarket without finding 2-3 ads by eastern Europeans offering domestic cleaning work, strongly reducing the chances that someone could get by doing that.

The main problem is also the scale. Merely for Polish immigrants to the Netherlands we're talking about 66.600 permanent residents (stay longer than 6 months, in 2011, about 40.000 had stayed for over 6 years) and probably thousands more who don't migrate but move here to work occasionally or don't register. Considering the largest ethnic minority here is only about 350.000 people, that should give an idea just how big and sudden the impact of eastern European immigration is. Unemployment among them is also much higher, with 13% average and 19% for the age group 15-24.

All in all there something to be said in that specific case for job loss and migration being a problem. Now with the EU treaties you can't simply bar or even hinder eastern Europeans from entering, but clearly there's an issue that needs adressing there, especially since linguistic problems are starting to appear with permanent migrants, just like decades ago the groundwork for the spectacular failure of north-african immigrants' integration was laid when they failed to learn Dutch.

Consumption is only set for some things, like how much water people use, which will mainly be expanded through population growth. Sure. But that ignores other things that have fixed consumption at a given price, and still others who's consumption is fueled by the demand of other things. But that's all abstract.

The point is not to just make 10 new plumbers, but, as I said, to create a situation in which those plumbers are demanded: building more factories, for example, will require more electricians to participate in the initial wiring, and in the longer term maintenance. 

To complain that foreigners are taking jobs, and then complain that a labour shortage is the issue is... Extremely dissociated reasoning. The complaint and the problem are entirely unrelated to one another. To point out that eastern Europeans are taking up cleaning jobs is beside the point. If there are not enough jobs, make them. Not all jobs are in domestic cleaning, rather building new factories for both consumer and capital goods would be a good outlet for unemployed labour. But this depends on having an economic plan aiming at specific growth, production, and consumption targets.

The rest of your post is just complaining that the foreigners don't speak your language and are different, which is not a view I sympathies with at all, and find abhorrent, so there's not much to discuss there.

All in all, rather than look at how to make life decent for all, you're looking for excuses to justify groups of poor people hating on each other, while not solving a thing.

generals3:

Gracchvs:

generals3:

And what about those who think it's silly to let people in when there aren't enough jobs, meaning it will just make more people go on welfare? How do you solve that?

Again, 'those people' don't think to demand more jobs. Unemployment rate of 5%? 10%? The answer is to make more jobs. Cut the work week by a day with no loss in pay, this creates an instant opening for more jobs. Hell, in that situation we would see less stuff go to waste because more people have enough money to buy. New technology comes in that will result in lay-offs? Why should it? Lay-offs will mean a fraction of he former workforce will produce a multiple of the former products. Rather, keep the same work-force and lower working hours, or keep the same working hours and just produce more stuff, lowering the price for all, while demanding more jobs in the form of transport, storage, distribution in shopping centres, and so on. Companies complain that it cuts into their profits? Then you have to decide if you want an economy that rationally serves the people, or the profits of investors. I can say where I stand, but it's up to 'those people' to decide if they care about people, or just want an excuse to hate on foreigners.

Make more jobs? Oh if it were that easy... Lower the work week by one day while keeping the salaries at the same price is suicide. Europe already faces competitiveness issues and your solution is to make the work force even more expensive? Belgium already has the most expensive work force in Europe and we're being told by god knows how many economy related institution (including the EU) to work on that. 

And you seem to think an economy can only serve either the people or the investors, i'm not sure to which kind of socialism you subscribe to but ideally you serve both. And that is what many Social Liberal countries try to achieve. If you want to look at countries that only serve investors than look at China. And than compare it to Western countries and you will notice that companies aren't serving only the investors.

And do also note that if companies solely focus on "the people" and tell the investors to fuck off the investors will. And what than? Who will provide the funds for companies to be created or expand? If anything your plan will destroy jobs by the thousands (or millions in large countries)

I know for sure that if i have money to invest and someone would offer me 0.1% return while the other one offers me 5% i'd go for the 5%. And not because "i hate the people" but because darn it i don't want my wealth to decrease because of some socialist idealists. Ideally i'd invest in a decent (ethics wise) company that offers a decent return.

Lowering work while maintaining wages isn't suicide. It is only suicide if you think in terms of one company. There are less issues when talking about a country in a global economy, but that just means the problem is a global one instead of the limited national issue that nationalists make it out to be. If the problem is that there aren't enough jobs, then the answer is to make jobs. If that can't be done without including other countries in the same economy, then so be it, a rationally organized international economy becomes the order of the day.

To the idea that an economy can serve both investors and the vast mass of the people, well that just needs to be contrasted with what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is an economy based on private property in capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. It is spent on raw materials, plant, and labour, which are utilized to produce a commodity that is sold on the market. Workers are by necessity paid less than they produce, so they cannot consume everything. This puts a cramp on economic growth by itself. At the same time, in order to compete, individual capitalists have to utilize new technology and skills, increasing production and driving down prices and the rate of profit. This costs money to implement, which is where credit comes in. But the cycles speed up constantly until the tech cycle is faster than amortization. Nobody can stop advancing, lest they be caught out by a competitor. Capital can no longer be renewed, credit freezes. Stocks, assets need to be destroyed to maintain profitability. The economy grinds to a halt, people are thrown out of work, out of home, denied food, shelter, and medical care because it is no longer profitable. 

To rebuild profitability, new investment opportunities are needed. But where? Well, the only options available are areas where there's not been investment, so we get privatisations, in order to provide an outlet for investment. We get private toll roads. We get companies going to other countries and stealing land off locals, always with government support, in order to mine, dig oil wells, put up power plants, or wind turbines. We get wars in which the defeated country is given money for reconstruction, but that money must be used to pay for the services of companies in the attacking country. Sometimes they don't bother beating around the bush and just give outright access to the vanquished country's resources, banking, and labour market. We get government agencies and departments outsourcing first maintenance and cleaning, then the very work of the agency, privatised health, superannuation, welfare, and so on. But that isn't all. Government directly helps capital by signing in laws which, in one way or another, lower the cost of labour, now directly through wage laws, now indirectly through working conditions, attacks on unions,  clamping down on 'illegal' immigration.
 
Social liberals, by maintaining this system, show that they don't care about workers, poor, and minorities except insofar as they want to lower crime rates through philanthropic measures so that they won't get mugged. What they want is a stable playground for capital, compared to the 'conservatives' who want an unfettered playground.

Gracchvs:

Lowering work while maintaining wages isn't suicide. It is only suicide if you think in terms of one company. There are less issues when talking about a country in a global economy, but that just means the problem is a global one instead of the limited national issue that nationalists make it out to be. If the problem is that there aren't enough jobs, then the answer is to make jobs. If that can't be done without including other countries in the same economy, then so be it, a rationally organized international economy becomes the order of the day.

So basically you offer an impossible solution.

To the idea that an economy can serve both investors and the vast mass of the people, well that just needs to be contrasted with what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is an economy based on private property in capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. It is spent on raw materials, plant, and labour, which are utilized to produce a commodity that is sold on the market. Workers are by necessity paid less than they produce, so they cannot consume everything. This puts a cramp on economic growth by itself. At the same time, in order to compete, individual capitalists have to utilize new technology and skills, increasing production and driving down prices and the rate of profit. This costs money to implement, which is where credit comes in. But the cycles speed up constantly until the tech cycle is faster than amortization. Nobody can stop advancing, lest they be caught out by a competitor. Capital can no longer be renewed, credit freezes. Stocks, assets need to be destroyed to maintain profitability. The economy grinds to a halt, people are thrown out of work, out of home, denied food, shelter, and medical care because it is no longer profitable. 

Ok i followed until you said "this puts a cramp on economic growth by itself". Firstly, what's bad about more and cheaper goods? It increases everyone's standards of living. If you can buy 10 items with 1k and earn 1k per month you're still better off than someone who can buy 5 items with 1.5k and earns 1.5k per month. Maybe you need to rethink this all. And the fact that companies cannot stop advancing is exactly what makes capitalism awesome and why communism failed over and over.

And than comes that jump where capital cannot be renewed. No explanation whatsoever except that it just happens. Care to elaborate? Because right now this seems to be something you read in some socialist pamphlet and decided to copy paste.

To rebuild profitability, new investment opportunities are needed. But where? Well, the only options available are areas where there's not been investment, so we get privatisations, in order to provide an outlet for investment. We get private toll roads. We get companies going to other countries and stealing land off locals, always with government support, in order to mine, dig oil wells, put up power plants, or wind turbines. We get wars in which the defeated country is given money for reconstruction, but that money must be used to pay for the services of companies in the attacking country. Sometimes they don't bother beating around the bush and just give outright access to the vanquished country's resources, banking, and labour market. We get government agencies and departments outsourcing first maintenance and cleaning, then the very work of the agency, privatised health, superannuation, welfare, and so on. But that isn't all. Government directly helps capital by signing in laws which, in one way or another, lower the cost of labour, now directly through wage laws, now indirectly through working conditions, attacks on unions,  clamping down on 'illegal' immigration.

What's bad with "privatisation"? Sure it can fail in certain circumstances but you seem to present it as a genuinely bad thing. And the scenario about exploiting countries are mainly the fault of corrupted governments. They could just say "no" just like we do it in the west.
And most governments are the source of extremely high labor costs to begin with (in the west) them reducing it is them reducing their own influence. So in a way we could say its the governments INACTION that result in that.
 

Social liberals, by maintaining this system, show that they don't care about workers, poor, and minorities except insofar as they want to lower crime rates through philanthropic measures so that they won't get mugged. What they want is a stable playground for capital, compared to the 'conservatives' who want an unfettered playground.

I'm not sure if its even worth spending words on this obvious piece of bad written socialist propaganda. Kind of reminds me of all those extreme left wingers who call the normal left wingers traitors and sell-outs because they dare not being extreme about their ideology.

I don't mean to be condescending but i feel your opinion could use some more "nuance".

generals3:

Gracchvs:

Lowering work while maintaining wages isn't suicide. It is only suicide if you think in terms of one company. There are less issues when talking about a country in a global economy, but that just means the problem is a global one instead of the limited national issue that nationalists make it out to be. If the problem is that there aren't enough jobs, then the answer is to make jobs. If that can't be done without including other countries in the same economy, then so be it, a rationally organized international economy becomes the order of the day.

So basically you offer an impossible solution. 

To the idea that an economy can serve both investors and the vast mass of the people, well that just needs to be contrasted with what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is an economy based on private property in capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. It is spent on raw materials, plant, and labour, which are utilized to produce a commodity that is sold on the market. Workers are by necessity paid less than they produce, so they cannot consume everything. This puts a cramp on economic growth by itself. At the same time, in order to compete, individual capitalists have to utilize new technology and skills, increasing production and driving down prices and the rate of profit. This costs money to implement, which is where credit comes in. But the cycles speed up constantly until the tech cycle is faster than amortization. Nobody can stop advancing, lest they be caught out by a competitor. Capital can no longer be renewed, credit freezes. Stocks, assets need to be destroyed to maintain profitability. The economy grinds to a halt, people are thrown out of work, out of home, denied food, shelter, and medical care because it is no longer profitable.  

Ok i followed until you said "this puts a cramp on economic growth by itself".  Firstly, what's bad about more and cheaper goods? It increases everyone's standards of living. If you can buy 10 items with 1k and earn 1k per month you're still better off than someone who can buy 5 items with 1.5k and earns 1.5k per month. Maybe you need to rethink this all. And the fact that companies cannot stop advancing is exactly what makes capitalism awesome and why communism failed over and over.

And than comes that jump where capital cannot be renewed. No explanation whatsoever except that it just happens. Care to elaborate? Because right now this seems to be something you read in some socialist pamphlet and decided to copy paste.

To rebuild profitability, new investment opportunities are needed. But where? Well, the only options available are areas where there's not been investment, so we get privatisations, in order to provide an outlet for investment. We get private toll roads. We get companies going to other countries and stealing land off locals, always with government support, in order to mine, dig oil wells, put up power plants, or wind turbines. We get wars in which the defeated country is given money for reconstruction, but that money must be used to pay for the services of companies in the attacking country. Sometimes they don't bother beating around the bush and just give outright access to the vanquished country's resources, banking, and labour market. We get government agencies and departments outsourcing first maintenance and cleaning, then the very work of the agency, privatised health, superannuation, welfare, and so on. But that isn't all. Government directly helps capital by signing in laws which, in one way or another, lower the cost of labour, now directly through wage laws, now indirectly through working conditions, attacks on unions,  clamping down on 'illegal' immigration.

What's bad with "privatisation"? Sure it can fail in certain circumstances but you seem to present it as a genuinely bad thing. And the scenario about exploiting countries are mainly the fault of corrupted governments. They could just say "no" just like we do it in the west.
And most governments are the source of extremely high labor costs to begin with (in the west) them reducing it is them reducing their own influence. So in a way we could say its the governments INACTION that result in that. 
 

Social liberals, by maintaining this system, show that they don't care about workers, poor, and minorities except insofar as they want to lower crime rates through philanthropic measures so that they won't get mugged. What they want is a stable playground for capital, compared to the 'conservatives' who want an unfettered playground.

I'm not sure if its even worth spending words on this obvious piece of bad written socialist propaganda. Kind of reminds me of all those extreme left wingers who call the normal left wingers traitors and sell-outs because they dare not being extreme about their ideology.

I don't mean to be condescending but i feel your opinion could use some more "nuance".

I'm not sure if you're purposefully misreading what I posted, or if you're honestly confused. :/

Rather than an internationally planned economy being impossible, it is just simply 'not present'. It's not impossible, it will just take a lot of work to establish.

I also never said anything was bad with cheaper goods. I like cheaper goods. I even gave it as the solution to some problems. The point, though,  is that as the price of goods goes down, more goods need to be produced to pay off the new plant. At first this isn't a problem, since cheaper goods means more can buy them, so the rate of profit falls, but the amount of profit increases. However once market saturation is reached, that's no longer the case. The rate of profit continues to decrease, and the only way the amount of profit can increase is by cutting into a competitors market share. When that happens, there are goods left over that are sold cheaper in order to pay off any and all debts the bankrupt company has. This then has an effect on the prices of all goods. Either that, or we reach a situation of effective monopoly.

It isn't that 'cheap shit is bad' but that under capitalism the drive to undercut competitors' prices leads to a decreasing rate of profit, which brings about a crisis where capital ceases to circulate. You are focussing on the 'cheap' part which is incidental. The important part is the 'economic collapse' part.

I also didn't say privatisation was bad. I merely pointed out that things that many countries take for granted as government or socially owned are one place capital can go when everything else is fully capitalized. Again you missed the important point. It isn't 'privatisation is bad, therefore capitalism is bad', but rather 'eventually there won't be anything left to privatize, and where will capital go then?' Well, I pointed that out already: other countries, either with their agreement, or through force. That force is sometimes economic, where there is no real choice, or military, where there is no choice at all. Sure, Iraq could say "No, America, we do not want to purchase help for reconstruction from American firms." It could, but then there's the lack of that huge chunk of aid, the local capitalists who get some of it through deals with America. By the same token, Iraq COULD say "No, Australia, we do not want to buy Australian wheat, so we will have to decline your offer of billions of dollars to purchase your wheat with." the same government could say "We want to ensure meaningful workplace protections for workers in foreign factories here," or even "We want to sell oil from wells inside our country on the open market, and not be forced to sell them to any particular country, or to have any other country own those well in the first place."

They COULD say that stuff, but it's not exactly in the interests of those running the country to do so.

Anyway, all in all, you've missed the point of that part of my post. The point was to show that capitalism necessarily leads to crisis, war, and profiteering. It is, by definition, a system which is run in the interests of investors, not the vast mass of the people in general, nor the workers who run the factories and ports and offices in particular.

The unstated aim of the post, as should be evident by the nature of this thread and the posts that lead up to that one, is that immigration isn't the problem, foreign workers are not the problem. People who complain about foreign workers don't think to demand more work, decent work, for all. Nor do they think to realise that such division hurts their own fight to achieve more work, decent work for themselves. There are a number of ways to deal with immigration that don't rely on kicking them out, marginalization, or whatever, and in the end, they all lead to the abolition of capitalism.

Also, I don't consider liberals to be leftist. Left wing refers to those that defend or extend equality. Right wing refers to those that defend of extend privilege. Liberals, in seeking to maintain capitalism, are defending privilege and inequality. It's not a case of being traitors or sell outs, because for most liberals, they never had any pretensions of being genuinely left wing, at most they thought they were leftist because their party belongs to the 'parliamentary' or 'congressional left'. That's also why 'economic liberal' refers to Keynesianism, not socialism.

So yeah, I do have a nuanced view, but it's just like if you asked me to eat different types of egg. I'd be able to notice the difference in taste, and may be able to describe it, but I don't like egg, so I'm not going to like any of the varieties you give me. And propaganda? It's no more nor less propagandist than any other post articulating its views, in the sense that it seeks to communicate and convince others of a point of view. So that's just silly.

Gracchvs:

I'm not sure if you're purposefully misreading what I posted, or if you're honestly confused. :/

Rather than an internationally planned economy being impossible, it is just simply 'not present'. It's not impossible, it will just take a lot of work to establish.

I also never said anything was bad with cheaper goods. I like cheaper goods. I even gave it as the solution to some problems. The point, though,  is that as the price of goods goes down, more goods need to be produced to pay off the new plant. At first this isn't a problem, since cheaper goods means more can buy them, so the rate of profit falls, but the amount of profit increases. However once market saturation is reached, that's no longer the case. The rate of profit continues to decrease, and the only way the amount of profit can increase is by cutting into a competitors market share. When that happens, there are goods left over that are sold cheaper in order to pay off any and all debts the bankrupt company has. This then has an effect on the prices of all goods. Either that, or we reach a situation of effective monopoly.

It isn't that 'cheap shit is bad' but that under capitalism the drive to undercut competitors' prices leads to a decreasing rate of profit, which brings about a crisis where capital ceases to circulate. You are focussing on the 'cheap' part which is incidental. The important part is the 'economic collapse' part.

I also didn't say privatisation was bad. I merely pointed out that things that many countries take for granted as government or socially owned are one place capital can go when everything else is fully capitalized. Again you missed the important point. It isn't 'privatisation is bad, therefore capitalism is bad', but rather 'eventually there won't be anything left to privatize, and where will capital go then?' Well, I pointed that out already: other countries, either with their agreement, or through force. That force is sometimes economic, where there is no real choice, or military, where there is no choice at all. Sure, Iraq could say "No, America, we do not want to purchase help for reconstruction from American firms." It could, but then there's the lack of that huge chunk of aid, the local capitalists who get some of it through deals with America. By the same token, Iraq COULD say "No, Australia, we do not want to buy Australian wheat, so we will have to decline your offer of billions of dollars to purchase your wheat with." the same government could say "We want to ensure meaningful workplace protections for workers in foreign factories here," or even "We want to sell oil from wells inside our country on the open market, and not be forced to sell them to any particular country, or to have any other country own those well in the first place."

They COULD say that stuff, but it's not exactly in the interests of those running the country to do so.

Anyway, all in all, you've missed the point of that part of my post. The point was to show that capitalism necessarily leads to crisis, war, and profiteering. It is, by definition, a system which is run in the interests of investors, not the vast mass of the people in general, nor the workers who run the factories and ports and offices in particular.

The unstated aim of the post, as should be evident by the nature of this thread and the posts that lead up to that one, is that immigration isn't the problem, foreign workers are not the problem. People who complain about foreign workers don't think to demand more work, decent work, for all. Nor do they think to realise that such division hurts their own fight to achieve more work, decent work for themselves. There are a number of ways to deal with immigration that don't rely on kicking them out, marginalization, or whatever, and in the end, they all lead to the abolition of capitalism.

Also, I don't consider liberals to be leftist. Left wing refers to those that defend or extend equality. Right wing refers to those that defend of extend privilege. Liberals, in seeking to maintain capitalism, are defending privilege and inequality. It's not a case of being traitors or sell outs, because for most liberals, they never had any pretensions of being genuinely left wing, at most they thought they were leftist because their party belongs to the 'parliamentary' or 'congressional left'. That's also why 'economic liberal' refers to Keynesianism, not socialism.

So yeah, I do have a nuanced view, but it's just like if you asked me to eat different types of egg. I'd be able to notice the difference in taste, and may be able to describe it, but I don't like egg, so I'm not going to like any of the varieties you give me. And propaganda? It's no more nor less propagandist than any other post articulating its views, in the sense that it seeks to communicate and convince others of a point of view. So that's just silly.

Well i see i did miss some points but still doesn't change the fact it lacks a lot of nuance.
First of all cheaper goods don't mean less profit. The reason why they get cheaper is because thanks to skills and technology they can be produced more efficiently and thus cheaper. And what would be the problem if nothing was left to be privatized? none. Companies create new demand by releasing new products all the time, even if its only an upgraded version of existing products. As long as something is left to be invented there is no real need to keep on privatizing at all.(i think you also misinterpret the reasons to why things get privatized, it's not because governments are forced to do it but because they feel it's more efficient) The only limit to capitalism is natural resources, once we run out of those growth will become unsustainable and the system will collapse. But that's not for any time soon (mainly if we start focusing more on recycling).

And ultimately this disproves all your claims (at least until we run out of resources). People CAN start wars for money but they can under any system. Capitalism is no special snowflake. The soviet Union started god knows how many wars too.

And internationally planned economy is impossible because you will never be able to get all the countries to go for it. Meanwhile saying "let's not let immigrants coming in as much" is totally feasible. Why blame people for taking the realistic route to save their country from ever increasing unemployment?

Do mind i have never said liberals are left wing. I'm merely making a comparison because your statement that social liberals don't give a turd about "the workers/minorities/etc" is ludicrous at best. (hence why i call it propaganda too)

Gracchvs:
The point is not to just make 10 new plumbers, but, as I said, to create a situation in which those plumbers are demanded: building more factories, for example, will require more electricians to participate in the initial wiring, and in the longer term maintenance.

That's not a sollution for the same reason as with consumption: Factories won't be built untill consumption goes up. Nobody wants to make supply without demand.

I'm not aware of any product where the amount of supply creates new demand 1:1 without limits.

Gracchvs:
To complain that foreigners are taking jobs, and then complain that a labour shortage is the issue is... Extremely dissociated reasoning.

Except for some branches of industry like greenhouse-based fruit growing, orchards and such, it's a good explanation. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone working there any longer.

The same for building: The building industry is going down the drain because there's been a big boom of office buildings that weren't needed. The coming years will consist of repurposing and demolishing those, both of which are an economic disadvantage for the owners, so it won't be fast.

Residential housing is lowering in value and the mortgage subsidies that kept houses affordable are also being reduced, so nothing but bad news for building residential housing.

You can't defend that against such a background, it's getting worse because those companies are being undercut by eastern Europeans who don't follow safety regulations, undercut costs in a way other companies can't by law.

The same goes for the transport sector. A much-heard complaint especially in hazardous materials transportation is that they're being undercut by eastern Europeans who violate safety regulations on a structural basis. Especially regulations for lorry drivers themselves. Some cargos for instance can't be unloaded without protective gear, by law. An eastern European just puts on gloves and starts to unload that hazardous stuff in shirtsleeves, creating unfair competition.

Gracchvs:
All in all, rather than look at how to make life decent for all, you're looking for excuses to justify groups of poor people hating on each other, while not solving a thing.

That's a big assumption there mate, that the unfair competition is actually xenophobia. Can you prove that is true for every individual case?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked