Hello,

I just wanted to tell you that the President of Spain, Pedro S nchez, is
living my dream.

What would this dream be? Simple: TRASHING THIS COUNTRY'S ASS AS IT DESERVES.

President Pedro S nchez has the honor of being the first Spanish President I remember whose measures for guaranteeing people's access to fuel have resulted in fuel stations refusing to serve fuel to the public.

That's right, you can drive into a fuel station and they will tell you that there is no fuel for you. Awesome. Spain is confirmed as a dying 3rd World Country. Well done S nchez!

In case you are wondering why this is, the explanation follows. S nchez promised to enforce the fuel prices down and promised to pay fuel stations the difference... later... someday... and since we have empirical evidence that "someday" may be once the fuel station is bankrupt, they have decided to cease operations.

I think S nchez is living by a modified version of the opening song of The nterview.

"Oh Spain, why don't you die
that would fill my little heart with joy
may your women be raped by jungle beasts
and your men drown in their blood and feces
while the kids are forced to watch"

Go, go, S nchez! You can utterly destroy this Socialist country balls!


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Pedro S nchez is living my dream
By: Arelor to All on Fri Apr 01 2022 07:22 pm

I just wanted to tell you that the President of Spain, Pedro S nchez, is living my dream.
What would this dream be? Simple: TRASHING THIS COUNTRY'S ASS AS IT DESERVES.
President Pedro S nchez has the honor of being the first Spanish President I remember whose measures for guaranteeing people's access to fuel have

Price controls do not work. The United States tried that in the 1970s. I guess the Socialist Party will likely lose the next election. Sadly you will have to wait until December 2023.

---
þ Synchronet þ Inland Utopia - iutopia.duckdns.org:2023

Re: Pedro S nchez is living my dream
By: Utopian Galt to Arelor on Sat Apr 02 2022 09:44 am

Re: Pedro S nchez is living my dream
By: Arelor to All on Fri Apr 01 2022 07:22 pm

I just wanted to tell you that the President of Spain, Pedro S nchez, i living my dream.
What would this dream be? Simple: TRASHING THIS COUNTRY'S ASS AS IT DESERVES.
President Pedro S nchez has the honor of being the first Spanish Presid I remember whose measures for guaranteeing people's access to fuel have

Price controls do not work. The United States tried that in the 1970s. I gue the Socialist Party will likely lose the next election. Sadly you will have wait until December 2023.

Allowing people with money to do as they like doesn't work either. The answer is somewhere in between.

We tend towards extremism, where we either believe that we shouldn't intervene in the economy at all, OR, manage it carefully. We don't really have an ideology which is based on moderation, Socialism/Communism and Capitalism are both extreme, totalitarian ideas, where they insist that everything has to be compliant with their values systems.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Utopian Galt wrote to Arelor <=-

Price controls do not work. The United States tried that in the 1970s.

And still the Leftie Elites keep trying it - hoping that this time it will work, but it never does - for the same reasons as other times they try it.

But Lefties never let facts get in the way of a good Narrative.


... Debrief: Wife listening while you talk in your sleep.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 - Fredericksburg, VA USA

Boraxman wrote to Utopian Galt <=-

Allowing people with money to do as they like doesn't work either. The answer is somewhere in between.

Actually, it does. Again, read Thomas Sowell.

Allowing people with money to do as they like "doesn't work" only to the "intellectuals" who don't have money and lack the ability to acquire money.

We tend towards extremism, where we either believe that we shouldn't intervene in the economy at all, OR, manage it carefully.

Now, I do have to agree with this. Our society tends to take things to extremes without thinking.

If something is "good", then doing more of it must be better. Similarly, if doing something in excess is bad, then doing none of it must be best.

But that's not the case for most things. ex: salt. Too much salt is bad for you, but salt is a necessary thing. Yet people think that they should completely eliminate it.

The problem with this idea and intervening in the economy is that to allow the gov't ANY extra power has shown that the gov't will only take more over time.

The scamdemic has had more and more people starting to question the reach of gov't into our lives today.

Why do we need to ask the gov't's permission to run a business?
Why does the gov't get to set rules about how someone does their job?

The ignorant Left want to keep us "safe" but that's proven to be a smoke screen. (Hint: restaurants who's customers get food poisoning and builders who make houses that fall down don't stay in business very long.)

We don't
really have an ideology which is based on moderation,
Socialism/Communism and Capitalism are both extreme, totalitarian
ideas, where they insist that everything has to be compliant with their values systems.

If you think that Capitalism is an "extreme, totaltarian idea" then you have been brainwashed.


... You have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 - Fredericksburg, VA USA

Re: Pedro S nchez is living m
By: Dr. What to Boraxman on Sun Apr 03 2022 07:00 pm

Boraxman wrote to Utopian Galt <=-

Allowing people with money to do as they like doesn't work either. The answer is somewhere in between.

Actually, it does. Again, read Thomas Sowell.

Allowing people with money to do as they like "doesn't work" only to the "intellectuals" who don't have money and lack the
ability to acquire money.

We tend towards extremism, where we either believe that we shouldn't intervene in the economy at all, OR, manage it
carefully.

Now, I do have to agree with this. Our society tends to take things to extremes without thinking.

If something is "good", then doing more of it must be better. Similarly, if doing something in excess is bad, then doing no
of it must be best.

But that's not the case for most things. ex: salt. Too much salt is bad for you, but salt is a necessary thing. Yet peopl
think that they should completely eliminate it.

The problem with this idea and intervening in the economy is that to allow the gov't ANY extra power has shown that the gov'
will only take more over time.

The scamdemic has had more and more people starting to question the reach of gov't into our lives today.

Why do we need to ask the gov't's permission to run a business?
Why does the gov't get to set rules about how someone does their job?

The ignorant Left want to keep us "safe" but that's proven to be a smoke screen. (Hint: restaurants who's customers get foo
poisoning and builders who make houses that fall down don't stay in business very long.)

We don't
really have an ideology which is based on moderation, Socialism/Communism and Capitalism are both extreme, totalitarian ideas, where they insist that everything has to be compliant with their values systems.

If you think that Capitalism is an "extreme, totaltarian idea" then you have been brainwashed.

... You have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn

I disagree that "the market" will sort out the dodgy players. It may for a restaurant which poisons many, maybe, but for large
businesses, no. The institutions which nearly brought down the worlds economic system in 2008 still have customers.

I am a consequentialist, and freedom is judged not by contracts and papers, but by lived experience. This "economic
liberatarianism puts "on paper" freedom over experienced freedom. Freedoms and rights are in tension, and are not absolute.
Ones engagement with the public at large does need some moderation to assure institutions and systems serve the public good,

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Pedro S nchez is living m
By: Boraxman to Dr. What on Mon Apr 04 2022 07:39 pm

I disagree that "the market" will sort out the dodgy players. It may for a restaurant which poisons many, maybe, but for large businesses, no. The institutions which nearly brought down the worlds economic system in 2008 st have customers.

For one thing, the 2008 crisis was as much the fault of end-consumers as it was from big investment funds.

Finantial institutions were dumb when conceeding so many NINJA loans, but then people taking NINJA loans because they wanted to go on vacation abroad are also to blame. Heck, when the crisis showed its head up, banks stopped giving such loans and the public here went angry because the bank was not going to fund random junk anymore. This is so true that certain political parties made it an electoral program to force banks to keep offering loans or outright socializing the loan mechanisms.

On the other hand, dodgy finantial institutions still have customers precisely because the government forces people to go through them. There are lots of things you are legally forced to go through a bank for in Spain. If I wanted to buy the four donkeys that live next village, I am forbidden from buying them with cash.

However, it is ok that the government forces you to use these institutions, because there is the implied promise they won't let the system fail [\sarcasm]. The government can always foce a big bank to buy a banrupt bank for 1 EUR and everybody will be happy forever! (See Banco Popular's case in Spain).

My bank is a rural cooperative finantial institution, but getting into one of those is not affordable for most people. Your regular Francisco is de facto forced to get into one of those banks backed with government protection and what does what the government tells them to do.

So yeah, not much a surprise here that lame banks still have customers since customers are basically threatened into partaking.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

On 4/4/22 02:39, Boraxman wrote:

I disagree that "the market" will sort out the dodgy players. It may
for a restaurant which poisons many, maybe, but for large businesses,
no. The institutions which nearly brought down the worlds economic
system in 2008 still have customers.

I think a free market *can* work, however governments tend to prop up
business institutions and grant far more power and leeway than should
probably be allowed for limited liability and collective ownership.

I also think it's time to get rid of corporate income tax, require all political donations and advertising only from private donations and/or institutions where all donations/funding are from individuals and the
books are open.

As to displacing the corporate tax, for what it is, I would suggest transaction and exchange taxes. 0.1% on all stock, bond and currency
trades with ~5% on all loans that are not for a primary residence or one vehicle per individual, another ~5% for loans that have an interest
below the Fed rate, and another ~5% where the payoff is more than 10
years. This would also properly tax those that use ever broadening
loans to pay for multi-millionaire/billionaire lifestyles without ever actually paying taxes. I'd also rather see a vat over income tax as
well as a return to a stronger use of tariffs and excise taxes.

I always thought property taxes were kind of gross though. I don't
think living another year while owning property should be a taxable event.

Back to the matter at hand... I think with some restructuring of tax
basis, combined with lessening the liability protections corporations
receive and a few other points, a (mostly) free market can work. That
said, international trade is never going to be a free market, and thus
some level of protection for one's own nation is probably prudent.

I'd also like to roll back IP protections to something much more sane.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

I disagree that "the market" will sort out the dodgy players. It may for a restaurant which poisons many, maybe, but for large businesses, no. The institutions which nearly brought down the worlds economic system in 2008 st have customers.

For one thing, the 2008 crisis was as much the fault of end-consumers
as it was from big investment funds.

Finantial institutions were dumb when conceeding so many NINJA loans,
but then people taking NINJA loans because they wanted to go on
vacation abroad are also to blame. Heck, when the crisis showed its
head up, banks stopped giving such loans and the public here went angry because the bank was not going to fund random junk anymore. This is so true that certain political parties made it an electoral program to
force banks to keep offering loans or outright socializing the loan mechanisms.

On the other hand, dodgy finantial institutions still have customers precisely because the government forces people to go through them.
There are lots of things you are legally forced to go through a bank
for in Spain. If I wanted to buy the four donkeys that live next
village, I am forbidden from buying them with cash.

However, it is ok that the government forces you to use these institutions, because there is the implied promise they won't let the system fail [\sarcasm]. The government can always foce a big bank to
buy a banrupt bank for 1 EUR and everybody will be happy forever! (See Banco Popular's case in Spain).

My bank is a rural cooperative finantial institution, but getting into
one of those is not affordable for most people. Your regular Francisco
is de facto forced to get into one of those banks backed with
government protection and what does what the government tells them to
do.

So yeah, not much a surprise here that lame banks still have customers since customers are basically threatened into partaking.

I've never met anyone in real life who chooses a bank based on whether the people running the bank are actively working toward creating the next financial crisis or not. There are scant few that would not deal with a bank because their activities were fiscally reckless. Using Australia here as an example, our banks are giving out 100% loans, interest only loans for a residential market grossly inflated by government policy. Consumers don't know how to evaluate this, and when they are given the 'choice', the marketing is done by the companies themselves, like how you determine whether an energy company is "green" by the propaganda that very same company gives you!

People are working for these financial institution who get paid six, seven or even eight digit salaries to run these. They are responsible. Their salary is based upon the premise that they have great responsibility and are taking great risk. The buck stops with them, NOT the customer. The institution gets to decide who it gives loans to, and if it is hamstrung by government, it has far, far greater say in political affairs than the customer.

In Australia, the banks have a good deal of freedom to choose what type of loans they give, on what terms, and to whom, and they definately, positively make reckless loans. The government has underwrited bank accounts up to 1/4 of a million, and actively engages in policy to prop up the banks. The banks are more than happy to go along, and while they might make noises about an overheated housing market, they will still happily give a loan to some greedy f&*k landlord so they can buy their 10th property at the current eye-watering prices.

When they inevitably fail, these banksters will get protected, they'll either keep their jobs or get a golden handshake. They truly are the dregs of society, and I can fully understany why some people think some less-than-political means are required to deal with our financiers. They have it coming, they really do.

None of the 2008 GFC jackoff got punished, and they WERE criminals. They are definately not victims. They got away with high-crimes. Society didn't get angry enough at them. The Right Wingers deflected the blame to the poor black and brown people and suggested that Joe the Bricklayer was at fault.

Let me repeat, they engaged in very dodgy, unethical and criminal business practices, and having spoken to an insider, it was worse than what the mainstream media reported.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Tracker1 wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <62505881.7503.dove-debate@roughneckbbs.com>
@REPLY: <624ABCD0.22944.dove-deb@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
On 4/4/22 02:39, Boraxman wrote:

I disagree that "the market" will sort out the dodgy players. It may
for a restaurant which poisons many, maybe, but for large businesses,
no. The institutions which nearly brought down the worlds economic
system in 2008 still have customers.

I think a free market *can* work, however governments tend to prop up business institutions and grant far more power and leeway than should probably be allowed for limited liability and collective ownership.

I also think it's time to get rid of corporate income tax, require all political donations and advertising only from private donations and/or institutions where all donations/funding are from individuals and the books are open.

As to displacing the corporate tax, for what it is, I would suggest transaction and exchange taxes. 0.1% on all stock, bond and currency trades with ~5% on all loans that are not for a primary residence or
one vehicle per individual, another ~5% for loans that have an interest below the Fed rate, and another ~5% where the payoff is more than 10 years. This would also properly tax those that use ever broadening
loans to pay for multi-millionaire/billionaire lifestyles without ever actually paying taxes. I'd also rather see a vat over income tax as
well as a return to a stronger use of tariffs and excise taxes.

I always thought property taxes were kind of gross though. I don't
think living another year while owning property should be a taxable
event.

Back to the matter at hand... I think with some restructuring of tax basis, combined with lessening the liability protections corporations receive and a few other points, a (mostly) free market can work. That said, international trade is never going to be a free market, and thus some level of protection for one's own nation is probably prudent.

The "Free Market" can work ideology sounds a lot like the "Communism can work" ideology. Like the Socialists, we are just speculating, and pointing to cases where deregulation failed (such as 2008) as "not true Free Markets".

You can NEVER have a true Free Market, and if you could live out the Libertarian/AnCap wet dream, it would be a hellscape. Communism is preferable, as bad as it is, the Communist Eastern European countries didn't undergo permanent demographic degeneration like the Capitalist Free Market West.

Free Markets must mean free movement of people, and therefore I oppose this. Free movement of Labour is something that will destroy your nation. I'm not sure how one can argue for free movement of Capital, but then deny that same Capital the right to move Labour as it sees fit. This isn't a free market, as there is now a disconnect between Capital and Labour.

What does work is permitting private enterprise and allowing people to dictate their own terms of trade and prices, and denying people this has led to economic failures. But people look at this and think it means allowing corporate leviathans the opportunity to do what they like, and it leads to propertarianism, ie, you are able to do what you like with your property, even harm others, and its OK as long as its "voluntary".

"Free Markets" all to often is used as a cover for people who want to use their market power, their property and position to have power over others. All too often, especially with the Right, "Freedom" means freedom to oppress, degrade, subjugate and have petty, petty power. That your right to be a little lord trumps other peoples.

I've seen far, far to many people use Libertarianism and Free Market ideology as just a cudgel to justify their own petty lusts for power. I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just saying that many who do profess these ideas are like that, so I'm far more skeptical now of the argument than I ever was in the past.


Society should grant you the legal rights to your own property, and to your enterprise, and especially autonomy. Autonomy and having ownership of what you produce is where the true freedom lies. That autonomy must be preserved, even when you engage in joint economic activity (something Free Marketeers dislike).

The problem isn't taxes, well it is, but fundamentally it is property rights and legal rights, and the property rights that are granted in our society. We are too myopic, and we think that the only thing we can change is taxation regimes.

We need a more fundamental change. We need to fundamentally change the employer/employee relationship, of what is a company and look at property rights, and what property rights we should grant, and what they mean.

Fiddling with taxes isn't going to solve much.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Boraxman to Tracker1 on Sun Apr 10 2022 11:06 am

Free Markets must mean free movement of people, and therefore I oppose this. Free
movement of Labour is something that will destroy your nation. I'm not sure how on
can argue for free movement of Capital, but then deny that same Capital the right t
move Labour as it sees fit. This isn't a free market, as there is now a disconnect
between Capital and Labour.

Personally, if somebody is not a trouble maker there is not much of a reason for
preventing him from moving from a place to another in order to get a job. I am also a
bit confused of free market proponents that are 100% opposed to immigration.

I get limiting the influx of people from troublesome places (ie. people from cultures
with wildly opposed morals than yours) but seriously, sending away workforce you don't
need and taking workforce you do need is so much better than the alternative.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

On 4/10/22 06:12, Arelor wrote:

Personally, if somebody is not a trouble maker there is not much of
a reason for preventing him from moving from a place to another in
order to get a job. I am also a bit confused of free market proponents
that are 100% opposed to immigration.

Personally, I'm fine with immigration. I, personally, think it should
mostly be based one where are you going to live, and how are you going
to pay for it. I also think H1-B visas should have a salary floor that
is a multiple of minimum wage (5x).

I'm also not an an-cap libertarian though... I'm pretty pragmatic about
the need for boundaries, and even taxes. I just think the current
system is largely rigged and there are simpler solutions to building a
bigger bureaucracy on top of a sunken castle in a swamp.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sun Apr 10 2022 08:12 am

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Boraxman to Tracker1 on Sun Apr 10 2022 11:06 am

Free Markets must mean free movement of people, and therefore I oppose th Free movement of Labour is something that will destroy your nation. I'm sure how on can argue for free movement of Capital, but then deny that sa Capital the right t move Labour as it sees fit. This isn't a free market as there is now a disconnect between Capital and Labour.

Personally, if somebody is not a trouble maker there is not much of a reason for preventing him from moving from a place to another in order to get a job am also a bit confused of free market proponents that are 100% opposed to immigration.

I get limiting the influx of people from troublesome places (ie. people from cultures with wildly opposed morals than yours) but seriously, sending away workforce you don't need and taking workforce you do need is so much better than the alternative.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

A nation isn't a "workforce". This idea imposed on us by our "ruling elite", that our compatriots are exchangeable labour units is dehumanising and nationally destructive.

Bringing in "labour" en masse is always short-sighted and foolish. An immediate gain for a long term cost. To the business owner, it makes sense, but to the long term prospects of the nation, not so much.

There is a reason China and Japan don't go down this path, and why these nations will outlast Western Capitalists nations that do.
/

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Mon Apr 11 2022 04:54 pm

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sun Apr 10 2022 08:12 am

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Boraxman to Tracker1 on Sun Apr 10 2022 11:06 am

Free Markets must mean free movement of people, and therefore I oppose Free movement of Labour is something that will destroy your nation. I sure how on can argue for free movement of Capital, but then deny that Capital the right t move Labour as it sees fit. This isn't a free mar as there is now a disconnect between Capital and Labour.

Personally, if somebody is not a trouble maker there is not much of a rea for preventing him from moving from a place to another in order to get a am also a bit confused of free market proponents that are 100% opposed to immigration.

I get limiting the influx of people from troublesome places (ie. people f cultures with wildly opposed morals than yours) but seriously, sending aw workforce you don't need and taking workforce you do need is so much bett than the alternative.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

A nation isn't a "workforce". This idea imposed on us by our "ruling elite" that our compatriots are exchangeable labour units is dehumanising and nationally destructive.

Bringing in "labour" en masse is always short-sighted and foolish. An immediate gain for a long term cost. To the business owner, it makes sense, but to the long term prospects of the nation, not so much.

There is a reason China and Japan don't go down this path, and why these nations will outlast Western Capitalists nations that do.
/

Well, here is the thing:

Take some utterly stupid moronic Western country. I will take Spain, for no particular reason.

Spain has been spending heavy loads of stolen tax money into making higher education available for everybody. As a result we have plenty people with Engineering degrees plowing potato fields, because we have more Engineers than we need.

People has this tendency to feel like useless crap when they have gone through 2 years of HS Tech Studies + 5 years of College only to end up picking potatoes. If they manage to score a job, that's it. Of course, the problem is we over-produced degreed people, but now Spain has the problem that it has too many Engineers and nothing to do with them.

Now let's say there is a country with a defficit in Engineers. Let's call it Horseistan. If a saddle manufacturer in Horseistan needs an Engineer for his factory and there are no local Engineers for the grab, he needs to hire a non local Engineer. He may as well try his luck posting an advertisement in some Spanish platform for job seekers.

There are 2 scenarios:

1) Horseistan is a Nazi country and won't allow foreigner workers to move in. Therefore the saddle factory becomes impractical to operate and the manufacturer ends up moving the manufacturing offshore to a place where he can get qualificated workers. Hint: this is very very bad.

2) Horseistan is a non-Nazi country and a Spanish Engineer can move in. The Spanish Engineer is happy because he is no longer useless crap. The manufacturer is happy because he does not have to move the whole operation over. Hint: This is good. Spanish Socialists are angry because they spent many $$$$$ in order to educate an Engineer so he could over tax the crap out of him, and now they can't because he escaped their reach. Hint 2: this is even better.

The only issue I may have with (small "l") liberal immigration policies is that you could flood the local market with foreigner workers. Pretty much the reason why finding a Spanish hooker is getting harder, because Nigerians are taking over :-( I don't generally find this to be much of a problem because you only get this sort of influx when you are really short of workers for a given sector. It is when you allow people to come in without a job that they arrive and have to undercut existing industries' wages, which is bad for the locals.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Tracker1 to Arelor on Mon Apr 11 2022 04:33 am

Personally, I'm fine with immigration. I, personally, think it should mostly be based one where are you going to live, and how are you going
to pay for it. I also think H1-B visas should have a salary floor that
is a multiple of minimum wage (5x).

I'm also not an an-cap libertarian though... I'm pretty pragmatic about
the need for boundaries, and even taxes. I just think the current
system is largely rigged and there are simpler solutions to building a bigger bureaucracy on top of a sunken castle in a swamp.

There is something inheritly unsustabinable about an economy that relies on perpetual immigration. Companies talk about "sustainability", but then rely on a constant influx of migrants.

Not every country can be a net migrant sink, so this to me seems to smack of Western supremacy. *WE* are the best countries, and the normal mode of operation for the world is for the rest of the world to move to us, to power our economies for our riches and wealth.

Frankly, I find the position of the anti-immigrationists less racist.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

A nation isn't a "workforce". This idea imposed on us by our "ruling elite" that our compatriots are exchangeable labour units is dehumanising and nationally destructive.

Bringing in "labour" en masse is always short-sighted and foolish. An immediate gain for a long term cost. To the business owner, it makes sense, but to the long term prospects of the nation, not so much.

There is a reason China and Japan don't go down this path, and why these nations will outlast Western Capitalists nations that do.
/

Well, here is the thing:

Take some utterly stupid moronic Western country. I will take Spain,
for no particular reason.

Spain has been spending heavy loads of stolen tax money into making
higher education available for everybody. As a result we have plenty people with Engineering degrees plowing potato fields, because we have more Engineers than we need.

People has this tendency to feel like useless crap when they have gone through 2 years of HS Tech Studies + 5 years of College only to end up picking potatoes. If they manage to score a job, that's it. Of course,
the problem is we over-produced degreed people, but now Spain has the problem that it has too many Engineers and nothing to do with them.

Now let's say there is a country with a defficit in Engineers. Let's
call it Horseistan. If a saddle manufacturer in Horseistan needs an Engineer for his factory and there are no local Engineers for the grab,
he needs to hire a non local Engineer. He may as well try his luck
posting an advertisement in some Spanish platform for job seekers.

There are 2 scenarios:

1) Horseistan is a Nazi country and won't allow foreigner workers to
move in. Therefore the saddle factory becomes impractical to operate
and the manufacturer ends up moving the manufacturing offshore to a
place where he can get qualificated workers. Hint: this is very very
bad.

2) Horseistan is a non-Nazi country and a Spanish Engineer can move in. The Spanish Engineer is happy because he is no longer useless crap. The manufacturer is happy because he does not have to move the whole
operation over. Hint: This is good. Spanish Socialists are angry
because they spent many $$$$$ in order to educate an Engineer so he
could over tax the crap out of him, and now they can't because he
escaped their reach. Hint 2: this is even better.

The only issue I may have with (small "l") liberal immigration policies
is that you could flood the local market with foreigner workers. Pretty much the reason why finding a Spanish hooker is getting harder, because Nigerians are taking over :-( I don't generally find this to be much of
a problem because you only get this sort of influx when you are really short of workers for a given sector. It is when you allow people to
come in without a job that they arrive and have to undercut existing industries' wages, which is bad for the locals.

All Western countries are moronic now. They are moronic because they have become lazy, entitled and want to rely on eating away their social capital to provide "consumers" with shiny rubbish and to support the grifting of moochers and economic parasites. We feel entitled to success, and the state rigs the system so we always win.

What you are talking about, is entitlement, the Engineering student being "entitled" to a job they want. The company being "entitled" to labour.

The whole issue I have with your scenario, is that we are still dealing with entitlement. Horseistanians must accept mass migration, the dissolution of literally centuries of national identity, so some entrepreneur can make some money. They must do this so some Spanish engineer can get the job they *want* instead if reskill.

I just don't buy the argument. They try the same rubbish in Australia to justify mass migration. Oh, we don't have 'skilled' people they claim. Rubbish. The economy is not structured to meet our needs, the education sector is broken. Instead of fixing these problems, we just demographically overhaul our nation so gender studies students can get their dream job, so that marketing students can market, and so that the person wanting to start yet-another-damn-cafe-in-a-long-line-of-cafes can get a waiter.

If you step back, the whole premise is silly, and justifying migration for skills allows us to keep the broken system. It eventually will undo us all, because, as is the case in Australia, the host country eventually gets overtaken by the guests. It's like replacing your family wholesale with another member, claiming it is the same household, because you can't, or wont, get your kids to do chores.

The problem in Western nations, with regards to skills, demographics are INTERNAL problems. We must bear the consequences of our actions, and stop leaning on the rest of the world to fix our failings.

The practically of something which in my position is immoral (mass immigration) is irrelevant, just as whether I can replace my children with others may have economic benefits or not is irrelevant.

Asian countries don't do this, because unlike us, they are not silly and dumb.

And "skills shortage" is justification for mass migration. If it were just a few, really needed, hard to get skills, fine. But its never that. NEVER. No Western country has a limited migration program. They all, without exception, I've been to many, are engaging in demographic altering, unprecedented nation changing social experiments, all justified by the lamest economic reasons.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Pedro_S=c
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Apr 15 2022 11:45 am

What you are talking about, is entitlement, the Engineering student being "entitled" to a job they want. The company being "entitled" to labour.

It is not entitlement, it is efficency.

Becoming and Engineer and then studying other profession because nobody wants Enginers in your country is stupid if there is somebody somewhere else who needs an Engineer and is paying well.

Meanwhile an industry needing such worker will have to reconvert into something else or relocate away from its country if it can't get the people it needs.

Asians DO send workers outside and get labor from the outside. The difference is that countries like China try to make it so they will be able to, at some point, have skilled chinesse so they can stop depending on Western Engineering.

The problem are not migration movements as much as that we are unable to build a suitable workforce anymore.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

On 4/14/22 18:45, Boraxman wrote:

All Western countries are moronic now. They are moronic because they
have become lazy, entitled and want to rely on eating away their
social capital to provide "consumers" with shiny rubbish and to
support the grifting of moochers and economic parasites. We feel
entitled to success, and the state rigs the system so we always win.

Where do you live?
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

On 4/14/22 18:34, Boraxman wrote:

There is something inheritly unsustabinable about an economy that relies on perpetual immigration. Companies talk about "sustainability", but then rely on
a constant influx of migrants.

Not every country can be a net migrant sink, so this to me seems to smack of Western supremacy. *WE* are the best countries, and the normal mode of operation for the world is for the rest of the world to move to us, to power our economies for our riches and wealth.

Frankly, I find the position of the anti-immigrationists less racist.

You're arguing against a stance I didn't make... I said immigration
should be based largely around the questions "Where are you going to
live?" and "How are you going to pay for it?" ... That approach is
inherently sustainable in terms of immigration policy.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Tracker1 wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <625A0905.7516.dove-debate@roughneckbbs.com>
@REPLY: <6258CEB1.22958.dove-deb@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
On 4/14/22 18:45, Boraxman wrote:

All Western countries are moronic now. They are moronic because they
have become lazy, entitled and want to rely on eating away their
social capital to provide "consumers" with shiny rubbish and to
support the grifting of moochers and economic parasites. We feel
entitled to success, and the state rigs the system so we always win.

Where do you live?

Australia.

If you want entitled, Australian "property investors" are whiny, entitled pricks, who feel they deserve tax payer subsidies and that property-is-king. Keep the endless immigration and Chinese money coming.

If you want the face of Australian property investment, look no further then that contemptible Harry Triguboff.

I sometimes envy China, they have a leader who's willing to put these spivs in their place.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Tracker1 wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <625A0998.7517.dove-debate@roughneckbbs.com>
@REPLY: <6258CB9C.22957.dove-deb@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
On 4/14/22 18:34, Boraxman wrote:

There is something inheritly unsustabinable about an economy that relies on perpetual immigration. Companies talk about "sustainability", but then rely

o

n

a constant influx of migrants.

Not every country can be a net migrant sink, so this to me seems to smack of Western supremacy. *WE* are the best countries, and the normal mode of operation for the world is for the rest of the world to move to us, to power our economies for our riches and wealth.

Frankly, I find the position of the anti-immigrationists less racist.

You're arguing against a stance I didn't make... I said immigration
should be based largely around the questions "Where are you going to live?" and "How are you going to pay for it?" ... That approach is inherently sustainable in terms of immigration policy.

I didn't specifically said you made it, only that is a common argument. More often than not, by a large margin, justifications for immigration means justifications for mass immigration. Those who argue for immigration only when absolutely necessary, are few and far between, and castigated as bigots and xenophobes.

Immigration should be based on "do we want to make you a member of our nation".
The question "where are you going to live" or "will you benefit us economically" are secondary. We, as the host nation, are making an invitation for someone to join our nation. They should *also* do so without being a burden, though in some cases, such as asylum seekers and refugees, we would tolerate some degree of burden.

Westerners treat immigration purely from the immigrants point of view, and from an economic point of view, not from a societal or national point of view. When it is framed in terms of what is good for the person coming here, we put ourselves second, second over foreigners.

I'll repeat, I don't care of the person coming here CAN pay their own way. That doesn't make them suitable, especially if it involves large numbers who would change my nation into something else.

Londoners have been replaced in their own city, simply by accepting the premise that we need some skills, that we should allow people for an economic benefit, that they can pay their own way, etc.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

You're arguing against a stance I didn't make... I said immigration
should be based largely around the questions "Where are you going to
live?" and "How are you going to pay for it?" ... That approach is
inherently sustainable in terms of immigration policy.

+1


* SLMR 2.1a * Bushido does not mean what it sounds like.

---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP