[The Sabbaticus]

The globalist mantra of outsourcing industrial jobs to low-wage countries is steadily coming to an end, because:

1. national interests necessitate an industrial base;
2. paradigm shift due to equivalence in costs, when factoring in defective products, shipping costs and transferring tech to foreign competitors;
3. new low-labour intensive industrial tech

In short, it's the manner in which poorly conceived business dogma still lingers on due to the incompetence of the managerial class.

[Political Interest]

One should never trust businessmen or economists to know how to run a government. Their idea of something being good for the economy is only measured in GDP growth. They are not interested in full employment or living standards, only growth.

In fact it is probably best to keep businessmen and economists out of government because they are liable to run it like they would run a company. Such people should be kept on as advisors and in specific cabinet roles but a government should not be run based on the dictates and analysis of these types of professionals.

I've been told for years that I benefit from mass immigration by so called leftists. Why is it that the left and big business seem to always agree on this specific issue?

[The Sabbaticus]

This is a good article and partially answers your question. Champagne socialists loathe the lower classes and consider it their duty to give 'swarthy exotics' a shot at the American dream.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=166368&start=60#p14722646

[The Immortal Goon]

1. national interests necessitate an industrial base;

Please explain how Nike's "national interests" are going to contribute to making shoes in the United States.

Incidentally, I always love these calls to turn logic upon its head. "Capitalism isn't about making money—despite all known evidence to the contrary—it's about love of something."

They don't give a shit about, "national interest," however you define it. Capitalism isn't designed that way.

Property-owners are the most energetic flag-waggers and patriots in every country, but only so long as they enjoy their possessions; to safeguard those they desert God, King and Country in a twinkling.

2. paradigm shift due to equivalence in costs, when factoring in defective products, shipping costs and transferring tech to foreign competitors;

Again, this is in spite of the last 700 years. Now you've decided that now it's cheaper not to exchange goods. I'm sure everyone will drop a millennium worth of capitalist exchange because of your feels on the subject!

3. new low-labour intensive industrial tech

Quite true. This is just like how during the industrial revolution everybody just gave out food and reduced hours and kept working conditions better since productive capacity increased so greatly. Immigration, as you may remember, came to a grinding halt after industrialization.

Remembering the time before computers well, I can certainly say that people working in offices now do so about two hours a week because the computers make work easier—and thus capitalism reverts to love instead of money now.

Let's all join Sab here. If we all just believe that capitalism concentrates on love instead of money, maybe we can make this true!

[Albert]

One should never trust businessmen or economists to know how to run a government. Their idea of something being good for the economy is only measured in GDP growth. They are not interested in full employment or living standards, only growth.

In fact it is probably best to keep businessmen and economists out of government because they are liable to run it like they would run a company. Such people should be kept on as advisors and in specific cabinet roles but a government should not be run based on the dictates and analysis of these types of professionals.

I've been told for years that I benefit from mass immigration by so called leftists. Why is it that the left and big business seem to always agree on this specific issue?

This and this. I see it the same way business is not government and these two professions are of different realm. They need to be kept seperase. If the line between two becomes indistinguishable it bond to lead to poor governance.

Government priority is to rule for benefit of the whole, while business is concern of narrow specific interest of a few. Nothing wrong with that, but it has not place in government.

[Rich]

Muslims aren't the ones doing the vast majority of the shootings, stabbings, Suntzu, but keep believing that myth. Faith is a powerful thing. You can believe in a man who walked on water, and bullshit like that, with it.

Muslims are the most victimized group in America, but not the most violent. That honour is reserved for home-grown 'Mericans!

In 2011 Muslims, 0.8 % of the population, made up 11% of the American prison population. American Muslims as a group are more violent than Blacks and Hispanics.

[Zagadka]

... Muslim isn't a race...

[Albert]

Who said so?

[anasawad]

@Rich
Actually the reason there are so many Muslims in both US and French prisons and why both of those countries tend to suffer more of Islamic terrorism is mostly not partly due to the stupidity of the people managing the judicial system and prisons in general.

If anyone, could be a 10 year old child and still would notice the trend, is that extremests, particularly Wahabi extremests tend to go after violent people specifically criminals to turn them to their side. You know, like how all the criminals Saudi Arabia emptied from their prisons and sent them to Syria, and now those guys are part of both ISIS and Nusra front. See, criminals, they're not much into the faith rather the justification for their violence.

And unlike in most countries, or generally in all countries with exception of gulf states and the US and France. All prisoners are just lumped up in one place rather than each type of criminals seperated in different places and even sections of the same prison.
That means you can put one extremest in there, doesn't matter if he's a Muslim or a Christian or any type even if doesn't believe in god, literally any type of extremest in any aspect. Get back a year latter and you'd find an entire group of extremests of the same type. Specially in the US.
Because in the US, incarceration rates are up to the roof, specially after the 80s i think with that hard on drug campeign. So none violent people are put and treated as violent ones all in one big blop. Some will go in for having weed on them, and get out to do more serious crimes like murder and rape because they spent years in there with these behaviors and they'll adopt to violence, and like wise, some will spend years exposed to extremests and become ones them selves. That include Islamic extremests along with other types as well.

There are actually quite a good number of articles about how many groups including crime groups and terrorists groups and etc use prisons to recruit and converge people into their own.
And most "Muslims" who are in prison weren't actually muslims when they got in there. Just like most members of drug trafficking organizations and criminal organizations who are in prison weren't part of it when they got in.

Now i know you'd say that this means that Islam is a violent religion, i would answer, no, it is a religion its not an ideology, and there are tons and tons of branches of it. But the extreme branches are as few as they are, are the ones mostly get sent to jail and converge and recruit more in there.

Here, and else where as well, in places where government officials and people in charge know how to use their brains, do consider these things so they don't put all types of prisoners in the same place, as it gives them better chances to rehabilitate them and if couldn't atleast not turn them into worse people.
In places where the usage of probably one of the best results of evolution, the brain, is not much of importance, well.....its different.


@Albert
Everyone on earth.
Islam is a religion, just like all other religions. Its not a race, and its not an ideology, its not even a culture.

[Zagadka]

I'm not defending anyone, but comparing numbers of a religion to race is apples and oranges.

Now i know you'd say that this means that Islam is a violent religion, i would answer, no, it is a religion its not an ideology

Islam is quite a violent religion. I think they are the only mass religion that straight up ritually slaughters a ton of animals.

[The Sabbaticus]

Please explain how Nike's "national interests" are going to contribute to making shoes in the United States.

Incidentally, I always love these calls to turn logic upon its head. "Capitalism isn't about making money—despite all known evidence to the contrary—it's about love of something."

They don't give a shit about, "national interest," however you define it. Capitalism isn't designed that way.

If you don't know what state interests are, I can't help you. And the listed reasons were self-evident.

Again, this is in spite of the last 700 years. Now you've decided that now it's cheaper not to exchange goods. I'm sure everyone will drop a millennium worth of capitalist exchange because of your feels on the subject!

What does this have to do with outsourcing jobs and reversing the self-imposed hobbling of the industrial sector in the USA?

Quite true. This is just like how during the industrial revolution everybody just gave out food and reduced hours and kept working conditions better since productive capacity increased so greatly. Immigration, as you may remember, came to a grinding halt after industrialization.

Remembering the time before computers well, I can certainly say that people working in offices now do so about two hours a week because the computers make work easier—and thus capitalism reverts to love instead of money now.

The topic that I raised was 'outsourcing'. If it takes ten people in Indonesia in comparison to one in the States, the answer should be obvious.

[Rich]

Please explain how Nike's "national interests" are going to contribute to making shoes in the United States.

Incidentally, I always love these calls to turn logic upon its head. "Capitalism isn't about making money—despite all known evidence to the contrary—it's about love of something."

They don't give a shit about, "national interest," however you define it. Capitalism isn't designed that way.

There's no such thing as Capitalism. Its a Marxist invented fantasy. Nike is not a conscious entity. It's shareholders and top executives are no doubt motivated by the desire to increase NIke's bottom line, but that is not their only concern. Law and government are necessary to police Nike's behaviour or to be precise its executives and managers. However everyone obeying the law is would not be sufficient for a well functioning, prosperous society. It is necessary that people feel sufficient belief in the socio-econmic system that they are willing to contribute above and beyond profit driven reward and the bare minimum of legal compliance.

Time, time again we get this time wasting, "its all the fault of capitalism." Look I for one am willing to back to Feudalism, if that will make you happy.

[Rancid]

Regardless, I feel bad for low skill laborers. They are the first to get cut when new automation technologies are created.

[The Immortal Goon]

If you don't know what state interests are, I can't help you. And the listed reasons were self-evident.

So state interest has nothing to do with financial interest in the US? How fascinating. When was the revolution that overthrew the premise upon which the American government rests upon?

What does this [centuries of outsourcing jobs and hobbling of foreign industrial centres] have to do with outsourcing jobs and reversing the self-imposed hobbling of the industrial sector in the USA?

You see, we live in this system that encourages people to make money. To make money, the people in charge will pay as little as possible to their employees to maximize profits. Often this labour resides is undeveloped countries.

The topic that I raised was 'outsourcing'. If it takes ten people in Indonesia in comparison to one in the States, the answer should be obvious.

Indeed. Move that productive capacity to Indonesia as soon as its possible.

As per Rich, yes, feudalism would mean less immigration. That does not make feudalism a preferable system, but does show that economics matter.

[Pants-of-dog]

Dead links here, but if they say roughly the same thing I've roughly the same objections.

Since you have no real objections for the previous studies, I assume you have none for these.

What, like the Bank of England? :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ekers.html

I can not comment until I see the actual study.

That's because whether the wage reduction is found to be "significant" depends on the statistical techniques and assumptions (as I said). What's even less clear is the counterfactual: how much the ready supply of cheap foreign labour has to do with the fact that wages aren't actually increasing along with productivity for most folks. A lot, I'd say, but that immigration is a red herring since exporting the jobs has become cheaper and easier than importing the labour.

Yeah it is, including your own cite. The consensus is that there's a small negative impact, with ongoing contention as to its significance.

According to the meta-analyses I looked at, the "consensus" is that different studies say different things, and any results are due to data manipualtion rather than fact.

To me, this means that immigration is neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad for wages.

On the contrary, your cites push a very positive view of global capitalism. Free movement of capital and labour underpin their models where immgration doesn't depress wages. They're basically extensions of the theoretical arguments many economists make against regulation in general. Whatever you believe about immigration, be careful whose ideology you fly.

I honestly do not care if people accuse me of supporting capitalism. That seems like the behaviour of the communists I grew up with who were always playing the "more communist than you" game.

Having said that, I think both sides of the debate make too much of the impact of immigration.

[anasawad]

@Zagadka

Islam is quite a violent religion. I think they are the only mass religion that straight up ritually slaughters a ton of animals.

Not really, its not "ritual sacrafice".
For a start, its forbidden in Islam to drink blood or eat meat that has its blood in it.
So the blood is drained out, that is usually done by a slit on the vains of the animal.

The ones in occasions such as al-adha eid or when a child is born that is for the poor.
All who can, in such events, must distribute food to the poor and those in need, as little as a goat or as big as a camal or a cow. In eid al-fetr that turns into more flexible donation with it being for Sunnis the value of 1 meal to a poor person, to Jafari shia a value of 5 meals and to zaidi shia that depends on abilities but to all who can it is a value of 30 meals to the poor, can be less if one cant give as much.

[Suntzu]

Islam is not a violent religion.

[anasawad]

Islam is just as violent as Christianity and Judaism and Zoroastriansm and all the other religions to ever exist.

There is no such thing as a violent religion. Its the idiots who take things their own way and excuse it by religion whom are violent.
Pretty much the same applies to ideologies.

[Rich]

In France Muslims are estimated to make up 70% of the prison population. And this of course doesn't include all the Muslim criminals whose crimes are covered up by leftie "anti-racist" authorities. I suppose you can't accuse them of taking French jobs and their housing needs are relatively modest. Seriously I think we can find better things to for our workers than prison guards.

[Zionist Nationalist]

all religions are violent but Islam is more violent than the others in this day and age.

there are fundamental problems with Islam in regards to violence and the need to Spread Islam around the world and basically take over the world.