Europe submits voluntarily

[Trausti]

It'll cost less to the UK if the homeless are helped in their own countries.

In the long run they'll lose out. Immigrants accepted and put into a situation where they can build wealth of their own are a net boon to a nation. Simply having more people makes a nation greater. More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world. Small growing pains here and there are worth the gain, especially when our natural rivals are already outpacing us in several crucial areas.

This is why Nigeria has vastly greater GDP than South Korea, Australia, or Sweden.

 

[LordKiran]

It'll cost less to the UK if the homeless are helped in their own countries.

In the long run they'll lose out. Immigrants accepted and put into a situation where they can build wealth of their own are a net boon to a nation. Simply having more people makes a nation greater. More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world. Small growing pains here and there are worth the gain, especially when our natural rivals are already outpacing us in several crucial areas.

This is why Nigeria has vastly greater GDP than South Korea, Australia, or Sweden.

Why assume GDP has anything to do with population rather than other factors I KNOW more than one person has gone over with you at this point. Economies scale with population in functional societies.

 

[angelo]

Electing the far left loony Jeremy Corbyn will solve all the problems? Britain will become a socialist paradise like no other.

Why should we listen to a known career criminal?

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

 

[angelo]

It'll cost less to the UK if the homeless are helped in their own countries.

In the long run they'll lose out. Immigrants accepted and put into a situation where they can build wealth of their own are a net boon to a nation. Simply having more people makes a nation greater. More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world. Small growing pains here and there are worth the gain, especially when our natural rivals are already outpacing us in several crucial areas.

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of economic migrants looking for welfare states. These people are a burden not an asset to "ALL " Western Nations.

 

[Jokodo]

Electing the far left loony Jeremy Corbyn will solve all the problems? Britain will become a socialist paradise like no other.

Why should we listen to a known career criminal?

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

You say so, but can you prove it??

*Mods: No, I'm not actually libeling angelo. I'm demonstrating his method of argumentation, which is basically "make unsupported claims and call it a win the other side can't immediately disprove them.

 

[angelo]

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

You say so, but can you prove it??

*Mods: No, I'm not actually libeling angelo. I'm demonstrating his method of argumentation, which is basically "make unsupported claims and call it a win the other side can't immediately disprove them.

Can you prove you're not a serial killer?

 

[Jokodo]

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

You say so, but can you prove it??

*Mods: No, I'm not actually libeling angelo. I'm demonstrating his method of argumentation, which is basically "make unsupported claims and call it a win the other side can't immediately disprove them.

Can you prove you're not a serial killer?

I can't.
And I don't have to: I don't pretend an unfounded accusation is a valid argument, as you do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Electing the far left loony Jeremy Corbyn will solve all the problems? Britain will become a socialist paradise like no other.

Why should we listen to a known career criminal?

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

This is a derail, but we're always better off listening to career criminals. They've obviously figured out how to work the system. They are the ultimate experts. We just need to give them an incentive not to screw us over when we ask them for advice. People turning to a life of crime is rarely the fault of the criminal. People respond to incentives, and if people become career criminals we fucked up when designing the system. I don't like using shame to deter people from going for choice pieces of meat we're dangling right in front of their noses. Because it leads to a world where the shameless are winners. I don't want to live in a world like that. I want to live in a world where being an honest straight shooter and hard work pays off.

 

[angelo]

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

This is a derail, but we're always better off listening to career criminals. They've obviously figured out how to work the system. They are the ultimate experts. We just need to give them an incentive not to screw us over when we ask them for advice. People turning to a life of crime is rarely the fault of the criminal. People respond to incentives, and if people become career criminals we fucked up when designing the system. I don't like using shame to deter people from going for choice pieces of meat we're dangling right in front of their noses. Because it leads to a world where the shameless are winners. I don't want to live in a world like that. I want to live in a world where being an honest straight shooter and hard work pays off.

That's funny, you don't sound like a socialist, but actions tell me otherwise.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It'll cost less to the UK if the homeless are helped in their own countries.

In the long run they'll lose out. Immigrants accepted and put into a situation where they can build wealth of their own are a net boon to a nation. Simply having more people makes a nation greater. More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world. Small growing pains here and there are worth the gain, especially when our natural rivals are already outpacing us in several crucial areas.

This hasn’t worked for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and dozens of other countries. India boasts of being very developed by 2020 but it is riddled with high infant mortality, poverty, a lack of sanitation and basic health care and education. Nigeria should be one of the richest countries in the world but is riddled with poverty, mismanagement and corruption

India has a large economy but divided among 1.2 billion people it is negligible. India

https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/should-...hen-40-of-children-are-malnourished-vote-now/


Should India be sending a rocket to Mars when 40% of children are malnourished? Vote now.
November 5, 2013

Cue lots of outrage – in a country where 40% of children are malnourished and half the population have no toilets, wouldn’t the mission’s $70m budget be better spent on feeding the hungry? Or on fixing the energy system – more than 600 million Indians were hit this week by the world’s worst power cut.
And of course grist to the mill of aid opponents – how can we justify the UK’s tiny aid budget to an India that so misallocates its resources? END

India became independent in 1949 so it’s more about population pains,mismanagement but certainly non stop growing population pains.
After spending time in the Philippines, the slums of Manila seemed like Beverley Hills when compared to NEW Delhi.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If most " career "criminals were like me, most lawyers and many cops would be unemployed.

This is a derail, but we're always better off listening to career criminals. They've obviously figured out how to work the system. They are the ultimate experts. We just need to give them an incentive not to screw us over when we ask them for advice. People turning to a life of crime is rarely the fault of the criminal. People respond to incentives, and if people become career criminals we fucked up when designing the system. I don't like using shame to deter people from going for choice pieces of meat we're dangling right in front of their noses. Because it leads to a world where the shameless are winners. I don't want to live in a world like that. I want to live in a world where being an honest straight shooter and hard work pays off.

That's funny, you don't sound like a socialist, but actions tell me otherwise.

You mean that I don't sound like your cartoonish version of a socialist? Both conservatives and socialists want fairness and they want honest wages for an honest days work. In that respect they're identical. What sets them apart is how they define the terms "fair" and "honest". Socialists don't think a person living off capital is doing an honest days work. A socialist thinks that there's no real difference between the queen of England and a person on welfare is negligible.


I recommend reading the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It explains the difference between liberals and conservatives. Or lack of them. They're almost the same except in some details. Understanding how similar we are will help you understand "the other side". You seem to need a lot of help with that. Since your characterization of people other than yourself is absolutely bizarre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

 

[LordKiran]

It'll cost less to the UK if the homeless are helped in their own countries.

In the long run they'll lose out. Immigrants accepted and put into a situation where they can build wealth of their own are a net boon to a nation. Simply having more people makes a nation greater. More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world. Small growing pains here and there are worth the gain, especially when our natural rivals are already outpacing us in several crucial areas.

This hasn’t worked for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and dozens of other countries. India boasts of being very developed by 2020 but it is riddled with high infant mortality, poverty, a lack of sanitation and basic health care and education. Nigeria should be one of the richest countries in the world but is riddled with poverty, mismanagement and corruption

India has a large economy but divided among 1.2 billion people it is negligible. India

https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/should-...hen-40-of-children-are-malnourished-vote-now/


Should India be sending a rocket to Mars when 40% of children are malnourished? Vote now.
November 5, 2013

Cue lots of outrage – in a country where 40% of children are malnourished and half the population have no toilets, wouldn’t the mission’s $70m budget be better spent on feeding the hungry? Or on fixing the energy system – more than 600 million Indians were hit this week by the world’s worst power cut.
And of course grist to the mill of aid opponents – how can we justify the UK’s tiny aid budget to an India that so misallocates its resources? END

India became independent in 1949 so it’s more about population pains,mismanagement but certainly non stop growing population pains.
After spending time in the Philippines, the slums of Manila seemed like Beverley Hills when compared to NEW Delhi.

The growing pains I refer to are temporary job displacements and added stress on social benefits. What you describe are the results of many things, some of which you mentioned. Ultimately I don't see how Nigeria's suffering has anything to do with anything other than war, disease, corruption, civil unrest, outside interference, and just general incompetence. Nor do I see how this post refutes the core premise of my last few posts, that people are the primary resource from which all other resources are obtained; that people are the source of a nation's strength and that they should be regarded as such.

 

[angelo]

That's funny, you don't sound like a socialist, but actions tell me otherwise.

You mean that I don't sound like your cartoonish version of a socialist? Both conservatives and socialists want fairness and they want honest wages for an honest days work. In that respect they're identical. What sets them apart is how they define the terms "fair" and "honest". Socialists don't think a person living off capital is doing an honest days work. A socialist thinks that there's no real difference between the queen of England and a person on welfare is negligible.


I recommend reading the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It explains the difference between liberals and conservatives. Or lack of them. They're almost the same except in some details. Understanding how similar we are will help you understand "the other side". You seem to need a lot of help with that. Since your characterization of people other than yourself is absolutely bizarre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

With one big difference. Many socialists think there is such a thing as a free lunch, and believe the country owes them a living. Conservatives on the other hand believe on reward for effort.
Just look at the mess most socialist nations are in. A perfect example is Venezuela a country floating on an ocean of oil. The socialist dream came crashing down with the Berlin wall. The problem is that many younger generations have no idea what disasters a socialist system are. A system that is destructive to capital. A system that in reality strives to make everyone equal by eliminating wealth from the upper and middle classes and transferring it to people who more than likely have never contributed to their society thereby destroying incentives.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This hasn’t worked for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and dozens of other countries. India boasts of being very developed by 2020 but it is riddled with high infant mortality, poverty, a lack of sanitation and basic health care and education. Nigeria should be one of the richest countries in the world but is riddled with poverty, mismanagement and corruption

India has a large economy but divided among 1.2 billion people it is negligible. India

https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/should-...hen-40-of-children-are-malnourished-vote-now/


Should India be sending a rocket to Mars when 40% of children are malnourished? Vote now.
November 5, 2013

Cue lots of outrage – in a country where 40% of children are malnourished and half the population have no toilets, wouldn’t the mission’s $70m budget be better spent on feeding the hungry? Or on fixing the energy system – more than 600 million Indians were hit this week by the world’s worst power cut.
And of course grist to the mill of aid opponents – how can we justify the UK’s tiny aid budget to an India that so misallocates its resources? END

India became independent in 1949 so it’s more about population pains,mismanagement but certainly non stop growing population pains.
After spending time in the Philippines, the slums of Manila seemed like Beverley Hills when compared to NEW Delhi.

The growing pains I refer to are temporary job displacements and added stress on social benefits. What you describe are the results of many things, some of which you mentioned. Ultimately I don't see how Nigeria's suffering has anything to do with anything other than war, disease, corruption, civil unrest, outside interference, and just general incompetence. Nor do I see how this post refutes the core premise of my last few posts, that people are the primary resource from which all other resources are obtained; that people are the source of a nation's strength and that they should be regarded as such.

No, it doesn't necessary follow that more people means more individual prosperity.
My response was to

More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world.
India has lots of these and there is still mass squalor where hundreds of millions have lots of nothing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

With one big difference. Many socialists think there is such a thing as a free lunch, and believe the country owes them a living. Conservatives on the other hand believe on reward for effort.

Inheriting money sure looks like a free lunch to me? Getting more opportunities in life because of who your parents are is free lunching like a mother fucker. Capitalism is introducing unfairness (free lunches) artificially to boost incentives for work. The reason people like capitalism is because it works. But if you want to argue it's fair, I'd say you were high as a kite.

Donald Trump is a perfect example of the failings of capitalism. He's an absolute disaster as a human. An overgrown retarded man child who's only redeeming quality was inheriting money. An inheritance that he monumentally mismanaged and pissed away. The man hasn't worked a day in his life. If capitalism was meritocratic he wouldn't be elected to run a public lavatory, let alone the US presidency. He demonstrates how capitalism doesn't necessarily encourage hard work. Yes, incentives matter.

You clearly haven't thought this through.

I'm pretty liberal in my outlook. But I'm a pragmatist at heart. I support whatever works. I don't believe in a one size fits all solution. We often forget that we tried neo-liberalism in the West in the 19'th century. We stopped because it was a fucking disaster. That was the society that spawned socialism as a reaction to it.

Libertarianism is trendy today, but those guys need to read more history. It wasn't a well oiled society. It was in many way utterly dysfunctional. I really don't want to go back there

 

[whichphilosophy]

It'll cost less to the UK if the homeless are helped in their own countries.

In the long run they'll lose out. Immigrants accepted and put into a situation where they can build wealth of their own are a net boon to a nation. Simply having more people makes a nation greater. More people means more taxes, and business owners and investors, more scientists and engineers and mathematicians, more philosophers and thinkers and artists. More people means more soldiers, more grunts, navy and airmen, more laborors and builders and construction workers, more teachers and surgeons. People are the source of all power in our world. Small growing pains here and there are worth the gain, especially when our natural rivals are already outpacing us in several crucial areas.

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of economic migrants looking for welfare states. These people are a burden not an asset to "ALL " Western Nations.

We can't blame them; I'd do the same with such an open invite. I have worked abroad, but on contract. Once the contract finished there would be a short grace period it's the bum's rush and or gaol for illegal overstaying.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With one big difference. Many socialists think there is such a thing as a free lunch, and believe the country owes them a living. Conservatives on the other hand believe on reward for effort.

Inheriting money sure looks like a free lunch to me? Getting more opportunities in life because of who your parents are is free lunching like a mother fucker. Capitalism is introducing unfairness (free lunches) artificially to boost incentives for work. The reason people like capitalism is because it works. But if you want to argue it's fair, I'd say you were high as a kite.

Donald Trump is a perfect example of the failings of capitalism. He's an absolute disaster as a human. An overgrown retarded man child who's only redeeming quality was inheriting money. An inheritance that he monumentally mismanaged and pissed away. The man hasn't worked a day in his life. If capitalism was meritocratic he wouldn't be elected to run a public lavatory, let alone the US presidency. He demonstrates how capitalism doesn't necessarily encourage hard work. Yes, incentives matter.

Inheritance is bad for society. However, removing inheritance would be worse as it would mean the wealth would be squandered.

 

[bilby]

With one big difference. Many socialists think there is such a thing as a free lunch, and believe the country owes them a living. Conservatives on the other hand believe on reward for effort.

Inheriting money sure looks like a free lunch to me? Getting more opportunities in life because of who your parents are is free lunching like a mother fucker. Capitalism is introducing unfairness (free lunches) artificially to boost incentives for work. The reason people like capitalism is because it works. But if you want to argue it's fair, I'd say you were high as a kite.

Donald Trump is a perfect example of the failings of capitalism. He's an absolute disaster as a human. An overgrown retarded man child who's only redeeming quality was inheriting money. An inheritance that he monumentally mismanaged and pissed away. The man hasn't worked a day in his life. If capitalism was meritocratic he wouldn't be elected to run a public lavatory, let alone the US presidency. He demonstrates how capitalism doesn't necessarily encourage hard work. Yes, incentives matter.

Inheritance is bad for society. However, removing inheritance would be worse as it would mean the wealth would be squandered.

Yeah, it's almost as if embracing false dichotomies was fucking stupid, and we should find a middle ground - such as limiting inheritance by the imposition of highly progressive taxes on inherited wealth above a certain threshold.

But of course, that would lead to perhaps ten or a dozen families having to break up their assets, so it's completely unacceptable - much better to stick to the situation where tens of thousands live in squalor, than risk inconveniencing a handful of very wealthy families.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Inheritance is bad for society. However, removing inheritance would be worse as it would mean the wealth would be squandered.

Yeah, it's almost as if embracing false dichotomies was fucking stupid, and we should find a middle ground - such as limiting inheritance by the imposition of highly progressive taxes on inherited wealth above a certain threshold.

But of course, that would lead to perhaps ten or a dozen families having to break up their assets, so it's completely unacceptable - much better to stick to the situation where tens of thousands live in squalor, than risk inconveniencing a handful of very wealthy families.

That's not a middle ground at all. You're playing Monday morning quarterback here.

The thing is you won't succeed in taxing away the money--they are going to spend it instead.

 

[bilby]

Inheritance is bad for society. However, removing inheritance would be worse as it would mean the wealth would be squandered.

Yeah, it's almost as if embracing false dichotomies was fucking stupid, and we should find a middle ground - such as limiting inheritance by the imposition of highly progressive taxes on inherited wealth above a certain threshold.

But of course, that would lead to perhaps ten or a dozen families having to break up their assets, so it's completely unacceptable - much better to stick to the situation where tens of thousands live in squalor, than risk inconveniencing a handful of very wealthy families.

That's not a middle ground at all. You're playing Monday morning quarterback here.

The thing is you won't succeed in taxing away the money--they are going to spend it instead.

Good.