Topic: U.S. Will Need to Create 'Unprecedented' 35 Million New Jobs if Immigration Bill - page 4. (Read 4367 times)

well sure, when there was a better life and better opportunities here! with the exception of some inhumane conditions in some countries, we're just like the rest of the world now.

Yes we absolutely can.  My apologies if my use of "republican" was offensive.  

EDIT:  As it relates to the OP post, it was a about a Republican politicians statements.  But I will be more mindful in making that clear.

Isn't America a country of immigrants?
Why are so many American immigrants against immigration?
It seems to have worked ok so far.
Were your grandparents all post graduates with  Phds?
- or just people looking for a better life and better opportunities who then gave you the life you have now?

I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. For an example of what I am actually advocating, look at how the black market in Russia saved many people from starving in the '90's.

But history shows that when a currency fails, one or several substitutes simply move into place.  What you are doing or what we are "getting to" is not relevant.  In fact, you err in thinking that a peaceful and gradual transition can be engineered or would even be a good thing, and you likely don't envision accurately the nature of "a collapse."  For reference check Russia, 1990; Argentina, 2000.  These transitions occur over certain timeframes and with certain governmental interventions (which may be helpful or more commonly, highly destructive).

Perhaps, then, we could come to the agreement that one should avoid listening to politicians, rather than specifying one political label or another.

I'm not a Democrat and we were talking about economic decisions.  That said, thanks for conceding which party did get the economics right, which was my point from the start.  I'm not listening to repubs on economics because they are always wrong based on previously stated evidence.  And I do mean legislators and not necessarily Joe Smoe Republican.  Lot of brilliant republican minds in finance.  They just don't seem to work in Congress.   

Tsk... you left the blinders on.

Very well, I'll state my position clearly and without mincing words.

We're fucked whatever we do. The only hope is to build an alternative economy not dependent on the dollar. That economy is not yet ready. We're getting there, but it's not ready yet. So, when asked if I would like the economic apocalypse to happen today, or sometime in the future, I will chose "sometime in the future," in order to give us the time to finish developing that alternative economy. With luck, we may even be able to keep the chaos at bay when it finally does happen.

Sure.  Generally speaking, putting a problem off makes it worse when it's finally faced up to.  In economics, there is a theory that a an ec0nomic crisis can be outrun by printing money, simply by having growth at a higher rate than the inflation.  With the events of the last four years, both the evidence and simple math will show that's neither been the case nor is going to be the case.  In the past, though, this has been done successfully for limited periods of time.

I'd suggest a different approach to understanding the problem.  Not starting with a premise that the money printing was done because it was "good for us", that was all propaganda and lies.  Instead, start by asking "what's good about the printing for those who are doing the printing?"

From that point of view, the answer is quite simple.  By printing and keeping interest rates near zero, the US government pays very little interest on it's debt.  It's now refinanced short term treasuries into long term, locking in those low rates.  Of course, low rates and the FED buying all the papers means only that the party continues until average world interest rates exceed those of the US and capital flight begins.

Well, then.  We make out as long as there are big crises "outside" in Europe, Iceland, Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, etc, because the focal point of the media is pointed somewhere else.

Consider this - The stagflation created by the above policies does not allow for business or jobs expansion, because it is predicated upon low velocity of money.  High employment has in the past mean high inflation, and so it does now.  Thus the very basis of the argument for the stimulus (although perhaps well intentioned at the time of the first or second one) is now false.

You'r stuck between a rock and a hard point.

I think you misunderstand my position somewhat.

Reexamine my last post, without the blinders.

Ha, yes I do understand the spin made to rationalize the printing.  And since austerity would mean the party stopped, CLEARLY IT "LESS GOOD".

Because, hey...

You know that partying, that's good.

Lots of countries, my friend, have gone down this path, and the results of their decisions are out in the open to study.  The general theme is the "hollowing out of the middle class", which may be roughly understood is they steal everything you got, then toss you out on the road.

But hey.

For now, how about those drinks?

Well, given the choice of kicking the can down the road again or strangling the economy... I'll take kicking the can down the road. Neither plan was good, but I think it's pretty clear that austerity would have been "less good."

There's no easy way out of this hole that the two sides, working together, have dug us into. The only thing we can really hope to achieve is lessening the impact by creating a new economy within the shell of the old... and the longer they kick the can, the longer we have to get that done.

Fascinating!  Yes, printing the money will keep the booze flowing and the band playing for a bit longer!  Print!  Print!  Print, I say!  And stick with the party line!  A bit of a chore, yes, but by ignoring problems, it can be done!  And then back to the party!  Print!

Good, you've picked an issue which the democrats got right. Would you like me to list the ones they get wrong?

Picking a "party line," and sticking to it, is probably the worst thing you can possibly do, intellectually. It's shutting off your brain and letting someone else do your thinking for you.

Nobody is going to make your decisions better than you. Listen to you, not the guy in the red tie, nor the guy in the blue tie. Neither one has your best interests at heart.

No, the split is not even close to 50/50.  Anyone paying attention to the first 4 years of the Obama admin can clearly see the debates on austerity vs investment.  Repubs were wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.  If we had listened to them, we'd be double or triple dip recession by now. Hmm...how's Greece doing?   Instead, we have growth plus a record breaking stock market.  Wall Street should be throwing rose peddles at Obama's feet because they are booming.  

Anyway, I don't want to get anymore political than we already have but I obviously agree to disagree with you.    

http://agorism.info/

Just sayin'

and those people with jobs will need somewhere to eat.

republicans have become such a fucking shit party.

and the libertarians cant win an election.

wtf is a guy to do.

Or we could just let them continue doing the jobs they already do?

Probably wise to stop listening to Democrats, while you're at it. While neither is always wrong, they're both wrong about 1/2 the time.

Exactly!  And they are the jobs that arrogant Americans are "too good" to fill.  My suggestion OP, stop listening to Republicans about anything.  They are ALWAYS wrong.  Just more rhetoric to mask their obvious and continued bigotry.  Nothing to see here.