Should "Illegal" Immigrants Be Deported?

Is a burglar absolved of his guilt because the house he robbed was left unlocked?

If ILLEGAL immigrants (no quotations necessary) thought that what they were doing was okay, they wouldn't be hiring "coyotes" to sneak them over the border and then trek for days or even weeks through some Arizona or New Mexico desert. They wouldn't be using false identification and working "under the radar" (ie: paid in cash with no social security number or other official recognition of their existence).

Yes. I can only wish that such a president will come along.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

stop your anti-immigrant shit and learn from Maddox BITCHES

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#CLUETRAIN

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course they wouldn't. unless of course the motivation to live in the US rather than in Mexico was removed. Thats the whole point.

Well firstly I want to know what you propose to get rid of that incentive. I would tackle the problem by increasing trade with other states other then the United States, Mexico cannot solve its problems on its own, and it has already been tried before from Argentina to the USSR it always has failed. Mexico is a trade dependant country, and Mexico is trading because she has an exploitable work force. Americans don't invest in Mexico because it looks nice; they invest in Mexico because of those lax labour laws, and low wages. Mexico is already losing jobs to China, this will eventually only create more poverty. Arguably Mexicans are making less today then in 1994, but more Mexicans are working. In order to stop the incentive of the Mexicans to go the US they need stable, a serious anti-corrupt governmental program, and set economic priorities. It is going to be painful, I am certain of that. But Mexico cannot afford not to do it.

Thats the way things are now, its not addressing what I am proposing.

It takes time to come into fruition, things don't happen all of a sudden. In constant 1990 dollars Mexico went from $6,119 per capita to $7,218 per capita in 2000, and back down to $7,089/capita in 2001 due to the American recession which hit Mexico hard. Mexican trade has exploded and the US will not let Mexico go into Argentina syndrome like she almost did in 1994. Mexico is important. Things should be getting better, should...

I don't see how.

What you propose is what the USSR had, or any socialist theory. Everyone in the world making the same amount of money (u know what I mean on average), and the same labour standards, that would mean lower productivity because competition simply doesn't exist, companies not able to make profits, and thus pushing everyone down on a equal footing. Using your logic the average person should only make $7,400 per annum with the total world economy is that really development?


You just said above that standards or workers rights are decreasing, which would mean that even if wages are rising things are not moving towards equitable treatment of workers, and do the increases you quoted take inlfation into account?

Well let me address the first part. To a 3rd world worker which is more important:
- Job that has high standards of labour, but pays less
- Job that pays more but less labour protection?

Think of this in a 3rd world context not a western centric one, which one brings food to the table? Of course it is morally reprehensible but that is again just the pathetic state of mankind today.

Then about inflation, I know that in China there was a period of deflation during that period. China has virtually no inflation so yes it was real growth. Not too sure about India...but India does have a huge and growing middle class. Something is going right obviously.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

Indeed and the precedent has been when you have a centralized economic structure you have a centralized governmental structure which would mean Stalinism, and for the 3rd world Juche (self-reliance) which is essentially what you are advocating for some states. North Korea is a disaster economically after following Juche economic models, even NK now realizes that it has to open up. It is accepting FDI believe it or not.

Yes, but if thats the way it is because the military governor who has the support of the IMF says thats how it is, then it is the fault of the market

You could argue that and I don't disagree, but being a devils advocate, it is not the market imposing on the farmer to sell anything. As Sartre says “We are condemned to be Free”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have no right to say that. There are 1.5 billion people in China, 1 billion in India. Don't you think that should be spread out a little? I think that it's for the good of the entire world. You think too small.

Don't forget, had Hitler not driven out the Jews, they might've developed the nuclear bomb, and won WW2. What you're doing now is driving out the Jews.

 

See my first post

I won't pretend to have a good understanding of the Mexican economy, but clearly, if the reason US corporations are investing in mexico is because they have lax labor laws then it is in the US' interest to maintain those lax labor laws. opening the borders would make it against the US' interest. Not being knowledgable about the particulars I dont' know what steps would have to be taken to improve the standards and provide well-paying jobs in mexico, but whatever those steps are, I think my proposal would hasten them.

I can't argue with statistics, but I wonder if this rise in per capita income reflects rising wages or increasing employment? If its the latter then it will eventually have to level off.
In any case, if wages get too high, then, as you said is happening now, businesess will just move elsewhere, unless there is no place left where they are allowed to exploit people.

competion between countries trying to lure in companies by having more oppressive labor standards then one another would not exist, but, for example, US companies were doing just fine before they started moving all the jobs overseas, obviously they can make more profit by pocketing the money they would otherwise use to pay workers reasonable wages, but I don't really see any problem with making it impossible for them to do that, nor how it would destroy productivity.
I have no idea where your gettting the 7400 dollar figure, nor how this has anything to do with the soviet union.

It is the state of mankind today, but that doesnt' mean that it is at all acceptable.
I dont' know the specifics again, but again if this reflects increasing employment it will have to level off. If something is going right in India, I doubt it is the tightening of borders by their neighbors and the removal of labor standards.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.
I am not sure why you keep bringing up stalinism, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If the farmer doesn't own his land it is.

 

Lower the wages in the usa to Mexican standards, trade the SUV for a mule

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or start officially buying black tar heroine from mexican farmers, this way you will increase the livingstandard of everyday mexicans (instead of some superrich cartels) and you will lower the price/the need for usa tar addicts to do criminal acts for scoring heroine.

From a moral perspective it hard to judge about illegal immigrants because as somebody pointed out, many of who call themselves americans, their ancesters kicked out the native americans, but screw moralism for a while, because fact of everyday life remains that everybody is fighting for a bone and when you get too many dogs fighting for the same bone you get trouble, therefor the concern about immigrants is understandable.

From a pragmatic perspective, somebody said station troops along the border, that could be a viable option, if america is to keep such a huge army they might as well let it to something usefull(?) in peacetime.

 

On second thougts, give some headhunting tribes from papua-guinea a green card and assign the mexican border for them to use as game hunting zone

 

See my first post

Clearly not sufficient, can you try a little harder?

if the reason US corporations are investing in mexico is because they have lax labor laws then it is in the US' interest to maintain those lax labor laws. opening the borders would make it against the US' interest.

Exactly my point on this, the US wants Mexico to become the land of cheap labour. The US needs cheap goods in order for her citizens to enjoy the material wealth they enjoy today, due to the fact that real American wages have dropped, but as has consumer goods prices. If things were still being made in the US, eventually it would be too expensive due to regulation, and wages. Now listen closely American corporations don't care about America, they care for profit, corporations are now Transnational, with no national allegiance.


Not being knowledgable about the particulars I dont' know what steps would have to be taken to improve the standards and provide well-paying jobs in mexico, but whatever those steps are, I think my proposal would hasten them.

That is not economically viable for Mexico, if Mexico increasing the labour costs of her country, TNCs will simply pack up and leave to greener pastures, Mexico would be much poorer for it. And then there will be a flood of immigrants to the US. Your plan sadly will only make the situation much worse.

I can't argue with statistics, but I wonder if this rise in per capita income reflects rising wages or increasing employment?

Well it was in constant 1990 dollars so it was a real increase in per capita income. Now does that mean more money was in the hands of the wealthy? Most likely, but we can't say differently yet:

Labour costs per hour (USD) 1.26(1999) 1.57(2000) 1.74(2001) 1.79(2002)

In any case, if wages get too high, then, as you said is happening now, businesess will just move elsewhere, unless there is no place left where they are allowed to exploit people.

And that would again be totally counter productive to your plans.

competion between countries trying to lure in companies by having more oppressive labor standards then one another would not exist,

Oppressive cannot be said right across the board, yes some are. But what corporations are looking for first and foremost is cheap labour.

for example, US companies were doing just fine before they started moving all the jobs overseas,

They were? Odd I thought the late 70's and early 80's was a very bad economic climate.

nor how it would destroy productivity.

Americans today are working harder (in vain) because they fear for their job security, thus increasing productivity. Sick I agree but it works.

I have no idea where your gettting the 7400 dollar figure

Sorry it's $7900 per capita if we use your "equal pay" theory worldwide:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ

nor how this has anything to do with the soviet union.

Equal pay, and low productivity u make the connections.

If something is going right in India, I doubt it is the tightening of borders by their neighbors and the removal of labor standards.

It is the low cost of her work force, it the socialist policies of India (healthcare, etc), high education, and a huge work force, always wiling to work for less.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

I have mentioned them already haven't I? Centralization of economic powers is counterproductive in all states that have used it. Collectivization actually to my knowledge is not a big thing in NK actually. Juche would not support it.

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.

How are they going to advance? How are they going to build their markets? They will have inept, and large bureaucratic economies that will become stagnate very quickly.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up stalinism, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It is usually an eventuality of what you advocate for 3rd world nations.


If the farmer doesn't own his land it is

If is not an argument in the way you use the word.

 

Good wages in Mexico would remove the motivation for people to leave mexico. making that happen would become necesarry for the US if the borders were open as I have described.

if the reason US corporations are investing in mexico is because they have lax labor laws then it is in the US' interest to maintain those lax labor laws. opening the borders would make it against the US' interest.

Where do you get the idea that things would be too expensive if things were made in the US? Companies would just have to deal with smaller profit margins. Are you making the argument that we should maintain low wages and oppresive working conditons around the world so that Americans can have their current standard of living? The fact is, companies don't always lower prices when they move overseas.

If steps are not taken ahead of time to make sure that companies don't leave Mexico then it likely would be a disaster in the short term, but ultimately the US would be forced to take the necesarry steps to remove the incentive for workers to leave mexico and the situation would be fixed.

I can't argue with statistics, but I wonder if this rise in per capita income reflects rising wages or increasing employment?

No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.

Most all of them are. oppression makes labor cheaper.

for example, US companies were doing just fine before they started moving all the jobs overseas,

and before that?

Perhaps. another way of increasing productivity is creating a situation where people can take pride in their work, but of course thats too expensive.

So you're saying that increasing regulations so that worldwide, it is illegal to pay someone less than a livable wage, would lead to everyone making less than a livable wage?

I suppose you could draw a sort of convoluted misinformed connection between raising labor standards worldwide and the USSR, however I could more accurately argue that what you're advocating, closed borders, oppressive labor standards, and low wages seems to have more in common with it.

and where does the money for these socialist policies come from? I suppose people don't need as much pay if they're getting taken care of by the government.

There are a lot of factors at work there besides collectivization.

alright then. why say collectivization is doing more damage than globalization then?

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.

Why would they have to have such bureaucracies? In any case, if advancement means allowing foreign corporations to come in and take the countries resources at far below their actual value, then maybe they're better off without it.

Open borders and labor laws lead to stalinism? this is getting ridiculous.

You're assertion that farmers choose to grow for export and that the problems associated with this practice are therefore their own fault would only apply if farmers chose to do this on their own land, as it is, the people who farm the land and would previously be able to keep some of what they grew for their own families do not usually own the land, and instead are told what to grow by wealthy individuals who do.

 

You don't believe in freedom of speech?

If we did, we'd go live in China or India. I like a nation with wide open spaces. I am a cowboy, after all. Why should the population density of my country be increased at a geometric rate because people in China and India can't stop crapping out children?

It's good for the world to be as crowded as Japan? I'd doubt it.

If the Germans had driven out Austrian-born Hitler there may never have been a World War II.

 

Good wages in Mexico would remove the motivation for people to leave mexico. making that happen would become necesarry for the US if the borders were open as I have described.

Again this cannot and will not happen, good wages will make the Mexican economy go south, and only increase the wave of immigration. Do you actually believe (naively) that American companies are going to tolerate higher pay? No, they will leave, and yes some token Mexicans will have good paying jobs, but the majority will be out of work and moving on up, to the border.

Where do you get the idea that things would be too expensive if things were made in the US?

Are you telling me that it wouldn't be more expensive to buy an American shirt rather then a Chinese made shirt?

Companies would just have to deal with smaller profit margins.

And companies are not wiling to do that. Where are you getting this notion that companies care about your value system? What they care about is profit, why would they want less? Companies discontinue products because they don't enough profit not that they lose money for the company.

Are you making the argument that we should maintain low wages and oppressive working conditions around the world so that Americans can have their current standard of living? The fact is, companies don't always lower prices when they move overseas.

If steps are not taken ahead of time to make sure that companies don't leave Mexico then it likely would be a disaster in the short term, but ultimately the US would be forced to take the necesarry steps to remove the incentive for workers to leave mexico and the situation would be fixed.

What steps will be taken? These companies are huge lobby forces in Washington, so good luck.

No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.

Someone somewhere will always be wiling to work on the cheap. Let's say that Washington passes a law saying that any American corp. needs to follow x guidelines overseas. Those corps. will probably leave the US altogether and set up shop somewhere else, and everyone loses. China is not going to give up her low wage position anytime soon, as long as she's wiling there will always be a place to go. 50 million ppl every year going in the work force, there is no problem. Sorry Mexico will lose on this.

and before that?

And before that they existed in a heavily regulated even subsidized economic system that collapses in 1972, and from 72-82 there was a very rough patch. Before that period of time corporations were not really being competitive.

Perhaps. another way of increasing productivity is creating a situation where people can take pride in their work, but of course thats too expensive.

That doesn't matter, when you have 50 million ppl wiling to replace you. You are not indispensable in the NWO.

So you're saying that increasing regulations so that worldwide, it is illegal to pay someone less than a livable wage, would lead to everyone making less than a livable wage?

It would lead to scapegoat countries, for instance China. Who will not abide by this law. Corps. will flock to China for workers, and then the rest of the world will lose jobs and have a noticeable decline in wages, and much higher unemployment. In the west you already have the downward trend, lower wages, low inflation, verge deflation, and debt. Which all leads to the West being dragged down, and the 3rd world being brought up until they reach the synthesis, which is $7900. If we put up regulations things will get much worse, very quickly.


I suppose you could draw a sort of convoluted misinformed connection between raising labor standards worldwide and the USSR,

Your negative connotations indicate a cognitive surrender champ. You contradict yourself in that quote anyways.

however I could more accurately argue that what you're advocating, closed borders, oppressive labor standards, and low wages seems to have more in common with it.

I am arguing the reality, the way things work. Do I like it? Of course not, but I am not pretending to believe in some international egalitarianism worldwide, capitalism does not work like that.

and where does the money for these socialist policies come from? I suppose people don't need as much pay if they're getting taken care of by the government.

More investment means more consumer society (China for instance major consumer society now), and increase in wages through spending, and increase in taxes.

alright then. why say collectivization is doing more damage than globalization then?

Because the collectivized state sets quota's, and they have to met at any cost. That is the way the system works, you have to make sure that you have enough for your family, and for the government. If there is shortage guess who pays? In globalization (albeit very bad) the biggest problem is exactly what you advocate, regulations, and tariffs, etc. 3rd world farmers could make a killing if their trading partners weren't regualting and subsidizing their farmers. Things you undoubtlessly support.

All I was saying is that some states might be better off growing for their own consumption than participating in the market as it is now, certainly trade is better.

What is the alternative?

Why would they have to have such bureaucracies?

How couldn't they is the real question?

In any case, if advancement means allowing foreign corporations to come in and take the countries resources at far below their actual value, then maybe they're better off without it.

There is a axiom I like to share with you:

The only thing worse then having a TNC, is not having a TNC

Open borders and labor laws lead to stalinism? this is getting ridiculous.

You are advocating the opposite for these states, closed borders, internal development, central planning, collectivization= Stalinism. You should learn how to connect the dots.

You're assertion that farmers choose to grow for export and that the problems associated with this practice are therefore their own fault would only apply if farmers chose to do this on their own land, as it is, the people who farm the land and would previously be able to keep some of what they grew for their own families do not usually own the land, and instead are told what to grow by wealthy individuals who do.

But you are saying this as if it were every farmer in the 3rd world is in the same situation. If the farm off an owners land, don't you think the owner has a right to tell them what to do? Of course the owner should allow a decent wage, and enough food for the farmers. But the owners are not doing anything they shouldn't.

 

skipping your guys' debate:

if illegals became legal citizens, they would be able to earn minimum wage rather than 1$ an hour. Im sure there are thousands of lawyers who would take such cases. Legalizing all those now illegal would among other things, but probably most notably, drive up food prices(meat+agriculture). I dont see any of those republicans getting donations from the meatpackers and agriculture trusts(which they are) anytime soon if they let this pass...Obvious question, why would Bush present something that seems generous to a large minority but knowingly wont pass Congress by anyone?

 

Very funny, I guess I'll have to revert to my ancestral Aztec religion, & start sacrificing beating hearts, we've got 500 years of catch up

 

In a globalised economy, people should have free right of movement.

 

I don't think American companies should have a choice.

Of course they do, they can simply pack up and leave the US. Set up shop in Peru, or the Cayman islands and do the do as usual.

The US could simply not accept imports from countries(or individual companies for that matter) that engage in these practices.

Which would lead to an economic collapse in the US, Wal-Mart alone depends on Chinese goods, and Wal-Mart if it were a country would be the fifth largest importer of Chinese goods, and guess who number 1 is? The US, and the US dependence on Chinese goods is only increasing already she has a $100 billion trade deficit with China, meaning if she cut China off, she would suffer a major consumer lead recession and one she would recover from for a very long time. This theory of yours is not based on reality, or any pragmatic goals. Sorry, but it sounds very ideological, but not very informed.

yes,

This is supposed to be a answer? Explain how? I think what you are trying to say (oddly) is that if you increase Chinese goods prices then the US will eventually be cheaper. This will not and really cannot happen.

If they raised prices they would sell fewer products, as long as their still making a significant profit that would not be in their interest.

No, if the company can be making even more profit they would do it. That is the goal of corporatism. To get the most money possible out of each cent, a company will have no qualms for abandoning a region if their labour standards and their wages are too high, i.e. Mexican jobs leaving for cheaper China. Meaning more unemployed, more abject poverty, more illegal’s to the US. See the connection?

No steps will be taken, including the initial steps I'm proposing. That doesn't mean they wouldn't work if they were.

No, that supports my position that this should not be put up with, no place should be left for them to go.

These steps will not get off the ground in the first place, all major corporations will make sure that bill dies:

Here's a list of corporations you will have to beat.

If no one allows imports from countries with cheap labor than there wouldn't be any reason for companies to use it. There doesn't always have to be such places.

Again this will not happen because there will always be the hold outs. The US is get this: dependant on cheaply made goods for her economic vitality. The US doesn't have a choice, comprende? Especially when you have a trade deficit.

The fact of the matter is, corporations used to pay higher taxes, pay higher wages(in this country), and still be profitable.

Because they were protected, they were government sponsored, and by the late 70's many corporations were not profitable, and many of them simply disappeared. The Keynesians economic model had served it's purpose now it was rusty and old. You can only exploit a market so much you know.

Many of the companies moving overseas now are doing quite well economically, but obviously given an oppurtunity to be even more profitable they will take it. If that oppurtunity wasn't there they'd still be doing just fine here.

China will allow those corps. to come in a exploit their cheap labour, as long as you have a wiling partner there will no chance for change. Ask a typical American consumer, "are you wiling to pay more for something when you could pay less" they would say no, in a resounding majority.

I'm saying it shouldn't be that way.

It shouldn't but it is.

You don't think China would abide by those laws if it meant no one would accept their exports?

Again China has very little to fear, western economies will suffer as well if China was cut off, you simply cannot cut off a $6 trillion economy. One of the great success' of American foreign policy has been the opening of China, and that is not going to be reversed anytime soon. China is safe, don't worry about it. No one is going to say no to China.

no, it indicates my growing annoyance with the fact that your argument is increasingly sounding like "You said you were a communist elsewhere and the USSR failed, therefore whatever you're saying now is wrong"

Firstly you assume that I am connecting you being a communist to the USSR, not true. Sadly though I do believe that you do have the wrong idea about things, I can see the Soviet influence in you. Sadly Soviet is not communist, and is a poor excuse for communism, I would be a communist too, I find Marx's arguments very compelling and true. But I realize that the implementation leads to disaster.


You are pointing out that right now things don't work like that, and you're right that they are unlikely to in the future, but if the steps I've outlined were taken, then it would.

Would not work, your system would not work, it hasn't worked, and it is a failure.

To have a consumer society you have to have consumers who can afford to consume more than the bare minimum required to survive.

What do you think Globalization is? Think about Globalization before I answer for you. Connect the dots please...

quotas are not included in the definition of collectivization.

Collectivization has no set definition, and the historical precedent has been a quota system. What would be the point of collectivization without a quota system in the first place?

No, you asserted that countries that didn't participate in "free trade" that didn't benefit them would automatically have horrible bureaucracies for governments.

And history has proven this to be correct, or if not bureaucracies ineffective, and non-profitable corporations of the government whose sole purpose is to create jobs to sustain the population, and token exports. Argentina, to Ghana shows this to fail.

There's no apparent connection there. If you can support this position do so.

Ok shall I?

The Chinese since accepting FDI in the early 80's she has experienced the world's largest boom economically ever, she has pulled out 400 million ppl from poverty, and her HDI figures have increased .2 over that time frame, no nation has achieved that. In that same period of time China became a export oriented economy, and has over $400 billion of FDI. So my point is proven, shall we compare it to what you advocate, Maoism's failure?


Thats not an argument

Read above...

In no way am I doing that.

No, semantically you aren’t, but we mean the same thing.

It is the case for many

That really is no argument, appeal to popularity alert.

 

Note the word "should"

There's often a disparity between the performance of the market and the well-being of the population. Right now the market is doing well, but hordes of people are unemployed. If US corporations lost their ability to exploit people overseas they would become less profitable and there would probably be a recession, but there would also still be a demand for the products now being built overseas and a lot of unemployed people in the US willing to build them. Even if, god forbid, wal-mart went bankrupt, someone would step in to fill the demand with US made goods. More people in the US would be employed which would in turn increase demand for goods. Even in the US, people would ultimately benefit from making it impossible for corporations to exploit poor labor laws overseas.

Probably not cheaper, in some cases maybe a little more expensive. The fact is, companies generally do not pass the savings of using cheap labor on to the consumer.

What does this have to do with the fact that a corporation will not raise the price of a product to a point where fewer people would buy it if it is already profitable?

I believe thats what I said. No, it is not likely to happen, but you can't make an argument about what the effects of something would be if it happend by saying that it won't happen.
The US' dependance on cheaply made goods is not a desirable situation, and can be rectified, as I've pointed out.

Even today, there are profitable corporations moving production overseas to be even more profitable. Its not as if this all happend thirty years ago.

As I've already said, we should not allow imports from countries with weak labor laws, and companies do not generally pass the savings of cheap labor on to the consumers.

Once again, saying that something won't happen has no bearing on whether or not it would work if it did.

I can think of no other explanation for your bringing up irrelevant references to the USSR

As I've pointed out, you're position has more in common with Stalinism than mine.

This is contradictory.

globalization as its taking place today creates slave laborers, not consumers in the sense that US workers are.

quotas are not included in the definition of collectivization.

you're saying the point of collectivization is to have quotas? what do you think collectivization is?

Argentina collapsed because of globalization not due to the lack of it. I'm not familiar with the situation in Ghana.

First off, I'm not advocating Maoism, and second, the above information in no way supports your position that countries which do not participate in globalization that is against their interest must always have bureaucratic governments.

Thats absurd, how can you claim that my argument that we should open the borders, although i'm not semantically saying it means the same thing as "we should close the borders"?

It was a response to your argument that countries growing for export to the detriment of the growers is the fault of the growers because they made the decision. The fact is, that many of the people who suffer, are not the ones making the decisions.

 

Note the word "should"

You are then appealing to emotions of corps. You know they don't have such things.

There's often a disparity between the performance of the market and the well-being of the population.

Globalization cares for the former not the latter, you don't understand this. This is why your position is much uninformed; you assume the goal of Globalization is to improve the living standards of the world. No, her first goal is improve the markets, so she can make more money. You don’t understand the simple coloration btwn re-allocation of funds worldwide. Globalization is sucking money out of the west into the east, thus making more markets. Are you beginning to understand?

Right now the market is doing well, but hordes of people are unemployed.

But their jobs still exist, the US is not the world, ok. Their jobs are now merely overseas. Let me put it like this: one American workers labour costs is $20/hr, in China that could employ around 25 ppl in China. That I assume would be good wouldn't it? The companies aren't losing anything; they are employing more ppl, saving more money, and creating a consumer culture overseas. You assume that the money will simply go up and no where else, of course your western centrism, and geographical centrism prevents you from understand that the US is the not the whole picture. I beg you to think holistically please.

If US corporations lost their ability to exploit people overseas they would become less profitable and there would probably be a recession, but there would also still be a demand for the products now being built overseas and a lot of unemployed people in the US willing to build them.

You again assume that corporations want that, they don't want American employees anymore.

Even if, god forbid, wal-mart went bankrupt, someone would step in to fill the demand with US made goods.

I cannot even fathom who or what will employ low skilled workers from Wal-Mart. In the US who number 1 million in the US, and 300,000 in the rest of the world. You just advocated the complete opposite of what you are trying to do. These ppl will not find jobs, unless they take the jobs that Mexican workers are doing now. You are making the cause of the proletariat that much worse.

More people in the US would be employed which would in turn increase demand for goods.

That is not sustainable; there is again only a certain limit to this economic logic. Again this system in the US failed by 1972 and that's why we have what we have today. You are stuck in a bygone era, I suggest you look at the economic practices of other nations, and times. Because this is getting very childish.

Even in the US, people would ultimately benefit from making it impossible for corporations to exploit poor labor laws overseas.

Ppl in the US will not benefit, they will have a huge loss of corp. jobs.

Probably not cheaper, in some cases maybe a little more expensive. The fact is, companies generally do not pass the savings of using cheap labor on to the consumer.

Are you sure? Let's use an example:

Let's say it costs a company in Honduras to make shoes $15 and she sells them for $150, to make a profit of $135

Let's say it costs a company in Ohio to make shoes for $30 and she sells them for $165, to make a profit of $135.

See they can still make the same profit, but guess who suffers.

What does this have to do with the fact that a corporation will not raise the price of a product to a point where fewer people would buy it if it is already profitable?

Remember the world cannot lose money; the same amount of money exists. The only thing is that it is in more ppl's hands, and more employment. Because prices of goods go down wages can be lower and there will still be profit.

I believe thats what I said. No, it is not likely to happen, but you can't make an argument about what the effects of something would be if it happend by saying that it won't happen.

Sure I can, why not? Will a UFO land in your backyard?

The US' dependance on cheaply made goods is not a desirable situation, and can be rectified, as I've pointed out.

You have not pointed anything out, please quite the opposite. The US is currently dependant on foreign goods; it is not something the US can say, "Well we get out of the world economy". That time has passed the only thing you can do know is try to make Americans and American companies competitive.

As I've already said, we should not allow imports from countries with weak labor laws, and companies do not generally pass the savings of cheap labor on to the consumers.

Do tell, who or what will make up that loss? The US trade balance is $508 billion in the hole, that is -42% as percentage of imports. I would love to hear how the US will recover from $1.5 trillion worth of investment overseas, and not have a decline in living standards. I would love to hear how Americans will be able to afford more expensive goods, when they are making less then they were in 1975 when many goods were made in the US. Love to hear this...

Once again, saying that something won't happen has no bearing on whether or not it would work if it did.

What is the point of wasting my time with your fantasies?

As I've pointed out, you're position has more in common with Stalinism than mine.

You advocate Stalinist doctrine, Juche, doctrine in 3rd world nations, and you don't even see it.

This is contradictory.

Re-read what I said, "I would be a communist...."

globalization as its taking place today creates slave laborers, not consumers in the sense that US workers are.

You are so limited; you cannot see the long term benefits. Live for today I guess...

you're saying the point of collectivization is to have quotas? what do you think collectivization is?

Collectivization is the seizure of land from land owners, to the state. The state then groups those farmers into a collective to make crops for the government so the government can do x with it. They demand quotas so the government has enough x to feed the population, and possibly export.

Argentina collapsed because of globalization not due to the lack of it.

I am not talking 2001-02, I am talking the early 80's. Limited scope sir, is not your best friend.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Ghana.

I am so shocked! *yawn*

First off, I'm not advocating Maoism, and second, the above information in no way supports your position that countries which do not participate in globalization that is against their interest must always have bureaucratic governments.

But it does support the position that Investment and globalization benefits the population if done correctly. I cannot believe you are against the 400 million Chinese pulled out of poverty. Your economic system would put them right back on subsistence. Name me sir, a nation that was socialist which did not have a large economic bureaucracy?

Thats absurd, how can you claim that my argument that we should open the borders, although i'm not semantically saying it means the same thing as "we should close the borders"?

You say this: nations should close their borders
Translation: Stalinism and government control of the economy.

 

Clearly some people don't understand the fundamentals of supply and demand.

Wal-Mart is not a function of it's suppliers, it's a function of it's demand, the consumer. If the chinese supplier of Widget X dies tomorrow, someone will step in to supply Widget X to Wal-Mart. If a suitable replacement for said supplier cannot be found overseas, then one will be found in the U.S., and predictably the price of widget X will rise by some measure, but Widget X will still be on the shelves at Wal-Mart. People will complain, but that won't really be a historic event, in and of itself. If you do not understand this, go to the library and get a book called basic principles of economics, read said book, digest, wash down with a beverage of choice, and come back to Sciforums to continue discussion.

That is all. Lesson over. Dinner is at six.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course they should be deported. If our government placed Mexicans on notice that persons entering the US illegally WILL be shot, it would resolve the whole matter in a day. Unfortunately, no President of either party has had the guts to simply guard our borders! Let's place the military on that border, and tell them that if it moves, shoot it. Simple, cheap and very effective.