On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:59:14 -0800, Hawke
wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:51:02 -0800, Hawke
wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:11:07 -0800, Hawke
wrote:
Well thought out! We all know that there are no simple issues
involving
firearms.
Now hold on there just a galdarn minute. How many times have you
claimed that everybody who disagrees with your crackpot ravings is a
leftist receiving "cheese checks"? And didn't you consider Hawke one
of those leftists right up until he said something about guns that you
agreed with? Is he now immune from being called a leftist? Will his
cheese checks now cease? Keeerist.
Except that Hawke is still a leftist and it wasn't even an original
thought. Doubtful that he even read any of Machiavelli's works. A
simple Google search of the term "Machiavelli well regulated militia"
reveals where Hawke plagiarized his "original" thought from. Besides,
anyone ho knows anything about Machiavelli is aware that he only wrote
in Italian.
Hawke is way out there on most things. On firearms, we usually agree.
Just thought you might want to know where I got the Machiavelli quote.
It came from a book I just finished reading titled A History of Warfare
by John Keegan. It's a direct quote from that book. You may disagree
with me on just about everything but do know that what I say is
accurate. I don't just throw **** around for the hell of it like some
people around here. Also, as someone who is financially conservative,
pro guns, and anti immigration, I think the label "leftist" is not what
I am. I have too many disagreements with true leftists. I know real
leftists and I argue with them all the time and think their views on
lots of things are out to lunch. The problem is that people who are
politically far to the right think anyone who disagrees with them is
a leftist. But when you are way out in right field everyone looks to be
to the left.
One last thing, as a political scientist I had to read Machiavelli, and
to those who are too unaware to know it, his works have been translated
into English.
Hawke
A citizen of the United States, who is not an "American Indian", as
they were known for a few hundred years, who is anti immigration, is a
sort of a contradiction, aren't they?
Not if what one means by anti immigration is that the policy of the
country on immigration is that it should be both dramatically reduced
but also that the policies that are currently in place are strictly
enforced. We have plenty of laws against illegal immigration but they
are a sham. Enforce the current laws strictly and drastically reduce the
number of people allowed to move here and I would be very happy. I don't
mean no one can immigrate here, just a lot less. So that is what I mean
by anti immigration. That's not exactly what you might think the term means.
Hawke
Luckily laws such as you advocate were not in effect when your
ancestors arrived in the New Country or you'd have been born in
Russia, the Pale of Settlement, or some other such begotten place :-)
But more realistically, easy immigration simply means that there is a
pool of downtrodden labour who will work cheap. Reduces manufacturing
costs. The transcontinental railroad was built with mainly Irish and
Chinese labour, the New England mills were staffed with low paid
immigrant labour. The N.E. pulp wood cutters were nearly all French
Canadian immigrants.
Of course, organized labour is violently opposed to this - the mantra
here is "keep 'em out", "keep our wages high". Perhaps the better plan
is destroy organize labour and let salaries depend on individual
ability, then the whole question of immigration becomes mote.
But to get back to my original theme. Most of the U.S.'s progress is
due to the waves of immigration that brought hordes of hungry workers
to these shores to built the railroads and man the factories. China's
greatest asset is its, mainly agricultural, population that is
available to man the factories.
What is the future for a country with the highest labour costs in the
world?
Regards,
J.B.
Oh yeah, the good old days of unlimited immigration. Those were the days
weren't they? I have the anti immigration views I have exactly because
it's not the old days. Back then we had a continent underpopulated and
bringing in more people made sense. Not any more. We're full up as far
as I'm concerned. In fact, I think we're already overpopulated, which is
the only reason why I'm anti immigration. If we had 130 million I would
think differently. I think a cap of 300 million is a good idea. I don't
see much chance of that happening any time soon though.
You think!
But apparently a great many other people do not think the way that you
do. After all the Mexicans, particularly, are mostly in this country
to earn money. Which is not the point of the discussion at all. The
point is that the Mexicans can and do get jobs and make more money
then they can in Mexico.... In other words a large segment of the
people who have jobs to be done are quite happy to have immigrant
labour do them.
I suggest that just exactly like illegal drugs, as long as there is a
market someone will fill the demand. As long as you offer a job that a
Mexican can fill, Mexicans will come to fill it. Imagine the effect of
a federal law making it a crime to employ an illegal worker with a
mandatory jail sentence - say 2 years in the slammer. How many illegal
workers would you find here? But you don't see the law, do you? So is
there any real pressure on elected officials to actually stop illegal
immigration, as apposed to taking some visible but generally
non-effective action?
There are ways to compete if you have the highest labor costs. Germany
does very well and pays well too. One way is to let the other countries
produce the simple stuff that doesn't pay to make. We need to produce
the high value, difficult to make stuff, and the creative things, plus
food. We just need to get smart and start planning ahead and forget
about letting the market be our guide. That is what we have done for the
last 30 years and all the country has done is decline by doing that. I'm
for changing before we're desperate. And we're close to that now.
Hawke
Germany does not "do very well". They do just about the same as the
U.S. In fact there was an item in the news just the other day saying
that the German Finance Minister told the German government that they
had to cut costs - as a result of the financial crash the German
government could not go on with a deficit budget. Something that the
U.S. apparently hasn't faced up to as yet.
And while you are extolling Germany google on "guest worker". Germany
had mobs of so called "guest workers", immigrants from Turkey mainly,
who came to Germany for the high paying jobs and didn't want to leave.
And what did the guest workers do? Worked in the Mercedes and
Volkswagen factories - taking the jobs that should have been for the
German Worker. At least that is what the German Labour Unions said.
Regards,
J.B.