Thursday, August 16, 2018

Why the Left Loves Mass Immigration

In my opinion, there is a danger in too much immigration, for a variety of reasons.  There is competition for resources and jobs.  There is a burden on the welfare state.   Some groups of immigrants don't assimilate and may be hostile to the culture.  Some are criminal.

However,  my biggest concern is that mass immigration is used as a tool of the political left to promote the leftist agenda.  If we were to have open borders then the country would lose any resemblance to its founding principles of limited government.  We would end up with a socialist government.  I think that this is the reality, but people don't see this, and many others would welcome it.

This doesn't mean that I am against immigration, nor am I against immigrants.  I just don't want to open the floodgates to everyone.  I am appalled by those who say that we should have open borders, and I am hearing more calls for this all the time.

The problem with anyone taking a position against mass immigration is that you are immediately labelled a racist.  There is also the danger that your goals look similar to racists groups.  When browsing the internet for others who are anti mass immigration, it can be difficult to distinguish between those who just want to protect our country, and those who are hate groups.  As an example of this, I present the following video:

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

The Bangladesh Student Protests

The Bangladesh Student Protests over buses have turned extremely violent.

My concern is that student protests everywhere have become more violent. I get a sense that people are descending into chaos. There is pent up rage, much of which is out of proportion to reality.

https://youtu.be/mpbNbGZriIA

Saturday, August 11, 2018

7 Reasons Donald Trump Won

I found first part the video amusing because of his extreme reaction to the Trump victory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJOexGISPTI

He goes on to say nasty things about the political right, so response I wrote this ...

"Straw mans all over the place.  If your perception of the right is a bunch of racist, tribalist conspiracy theory loving authoritarians wanting strong men then you don't really understand the political right.

Socialist and left policies are authoritarian to the core.  It is the political right that loves freedom and free enterprise.  

Has society collapsed yet?

It is not racist to want to protect our border.  It is not racist to say that criminals are coming into our country and committing crimes; this is easily provable.  Nor did Trump call all Mexicans this.  The left plays the race card every chance they get.  Anybody they don't like they call a racist as a way of shutting down the argument.   This infuriates me to no end.   When Trump and anyone else they don't like speaks, the left is guilty of confirmation bias.  Any statement he makes is taken as a confirmation of his evilness.

It is the Republicans who begged Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell to run for President.  The Tea Party's and my favorite candidate was Herman Cain.

What you see on Social Media doesn't necessarily represent the political right.   It might for some people, but it is not represent the core beliefs.

I love science and I love your channel for talking about it.  

If you were more rational you would understand that freedom is the engine of prosperity and that Socialism has always failed hurting the poor the most.  Maybe you already understand this, but why then support the political left which has become more extremist?   We are headed toward a debt bubble that could potentially crash our economic system, and the only way to get out of this huge mess (admittedly created by both parties) is to have strong economic growth.  I take it as a given that we need less burdensome government and a better tax system, both of which we got.

I  know that many people didn't like Trump.  Even many of us who voted for him thought that he was a narcissistic billionaire playboy.  Believe me, people understood this.  I didn't so much vote for the man as I did his agenda, which I mostly agree with.  Given the stated goals of both candidates, one of which wanted to increase government's reach and sounded more like a warmonger than Trump did, it was a no brainer."

--
Best wishes,

John Coffey

http://www.entertainmentjourney.com

Saturday, August 4, 2018

The Venus Project And The Resource-Based Economy | Answers With Joe

In response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYodgWapmgc , I wrote the following:

The definition of Capitalism is that the means of production is privately owned.   Since when has it ever worked to have the means of production publicly owned?  I'm not talking about services to protect our rights, nor public works like roads, but 100% of the means of production.  How would you like to live in the Soviet Union?

Having a free market means that you are free to make choices, the opposite of which is tyranny.  Suppose you want to start a business?   You might not be allowed because your business doesn't fit the official paradigm.  Besides, you have no money to invest and no medium of exchange by which to conduct business.  You are completely dependent on the state to make decisions for you.  Some think that it is more fair if it is 'democratic', but tyranny is still tyranny.   There is no room for innovators like Steve Jobs in such a society.

Suppose you want to own a yacht or eat steak everyday for breakfast?   There are never going to be infinite resources where everyone can own a yacht and eat steak.  Either nobody has these luxuries, or there are those who are arbitrarily rewarded by the political system, making them the privileged class.  It would nearly impossible to earn these things through your own efforts, unless those efforts were were in service to someone more powerful than you.  These things are decided in a free market because people make choices about who they want to give their money to.  Voluntary exchanges, as opposed to involuntary ones imposed by the state, reward those who provide the most value for other people.

A society where you have no ability to improve your lot in life beyond what the state allows is a slave state.  By definition.  Impose a one size fits all lifestyle on everybody and people will immediately start to rebel against it

Communism and its variants are not just as corrupt as capitalism, but always more so.  People resent that under a free market some people end up much better off than other people, but the disparity of wealth is never solved in the various forms communism where the lot of the poor ends up being worse.  Allowing some people to be more successful than others in a free market is an essential motivator for innovation, investment, and hard work.

People respond to incentives on just about everything, including whether they work and how much they work and for who.  Incentives decide what people choose to spend their money on.

Money is essential for managing scarce resources.  Price will change based upon the laws of supply and demand, and price sends an absolute critical signal to people on how to manage resources.   Suppose there is a temporary shortage of orange juice and the price goes up?   People will switch to something cheaper, like grape juice.   When eggs are cheap more people will eat eggs.  When eggs are expensive more people will eat something else.  Eliminate money and resources will immediately become mismanaged.   There is no way that centralized control, automated or not, can properly decide how many resources to allocate and use.   State control is never as good as individuals deciding for themselves how to best serve their own needs.  State control will result in shortages like we see in Venezuela.  Black markets will form, because people prefer to make their own choices.

Friday, July 27, 2018

​Nietzsche on Democracy, Christianity and Decay (Prof. Stanley Rosen)

Some regard
Nietzsche as kind of crazy.  For others he has
an intellectual appeal. 
I think that Nietzsche wanted to tear down all the old institutions and morals.  He is kind of the opposite of Jordan Peterson who says that we need some sort of moral base to function as a society.  Jordan Peterson seems less concerned about whether or not religion is actually true than he is about what religion means to us as a society.

One thing I found interesting in the video is the notion that all structures are eventually replaced by something completely different.  This is kind of scary thought.  This is what the Marxists want.  We don't know what will eventually replace Western values, but it seems likely whatever it ends up being could be much more authoritarian.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Economics

FYI.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Korea
To: Albert Nelms 
Cc: Steve


Al,

I am going to address several
​of your ​
points here ...

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Albert Nelms <alnelms@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We need to have minimum wage keep up with inflation. However, any politician suggesting such a thing would be run out on rails.


I don't see why this is politically impossible.  Any party that suggests an increase in the minimum wage, perhaps moderate, would likely get votes.

This makes certain assumptions.  What business is it of the state to say what kind of wage people agree to work for?  If I choose to work someplace for $5 an hour, it is because I can't get anything better.  Maybe my circumstances are so bad that nobody will hire me at minimum wage.  It is like the application at Taco Bell that says, "What drugs have you done?", as to opposed to asking if you have done drugs
​ at all​
.

The purpose of minimum wage is not to provide a living wage.  It is for unskilled workers who might in time develop skills and be worth more.  It is intended for entry level jobs.

In reality, many places pay more than minimum wage.  People at Burger King told me that
​they ​
make $11 an hour.  Do you think that Burger King would pay $11 an hour if it could get away with paying minimum wage?  There must be some demand for workers, maybe reliable ones, that compels them to pay higher.

 
>
> There was a time when a person could graduate from high school and get a job in which he was able to support his family and eventually enter middle class.


That time seems to have passed
​ for many people​, but some people can still do this. 
  This is one reason we need an environment that is pro-business. Economic growth
​, preferably strong economic growth,​
is the only thing that will get us out of the debt bubble we are in, assuming that is even possible, and help us to solve many other economic problems
​,​
​ like having enough good paying jobs​
.

If a person can not make enough to support a family, then they shouldn't start a family.  Should there be a safety net for people who otherwise would not survive on low wages?  I think so.  We might need more of this if automation takes away jobs
​, but I am hoping that healthy economic growth can avoid this.​


 
>
> Today, college degrees are tied into student loans which in turn ties the graduate down to long term debt right off the bat. So, if the college grad has student loans he may never get to middle class. Now with internet degrees diluting the on campus degrees salaries for college graduates are dropping.with a few exceptions like doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9luf6IOpV4

The problem is that the government is spending over $200 Billion a year on higher education. When you subsidize something, you get more of it, whether you need it or not. When 40% of
college graduates are forced to take a job that would not require a college degree, then we are throwing away money educating too many people. The solution is to get government out of higher education and let the free market decide how
people need to be educated.

 
>
> The solution? Good question. There was a time when Americans who bought goods from say Japan or Germany were considered traitorous.


I think that international trade is vastly misunderstood.  When you buy something from Japan ...

1.  You do so because they can make it cheaper or better than the equivalent thing made in America.  In economics they talk about comparative advantage, where you might be really good at doing one thing, which is highly profitable for you, so you would rather somebody else do the thing that is less profitable for you.

2.  The dollars you send to Japan are no good to them unless they can exchange them for yen or buy our goods, and the currency exchange market only works if goods are going both ways.  
If there is an imbalance of trade, in an ideal world the currency exchange market would cause our currency to devalue and theirs to increase, which results in their goods no longer being as attractive to us because they are more expensive, and our goods becoming more attractive to them because they are cheaper.
​  This would result in trade becoming balanced.
 
​One​
 problem here is that governments will intervene to try to control the value of their currency.
​ 
Where it gets complicated is when they use their surplus of dollars to buy investments or property in America.

​​

>
>
Now no one cares about their fellow American. If I owned a McDonald franchise and raised my prices so I could pay $15 per hour minimum, I'd be out of business in a week. The new American spirit is selfish and focuses only on ones best interest. The country and fellow Americans take a back seat.

As a general rule, people everywhere focus on their self interest.  This is not a bad thing, at least most of the time. The free market is a system where you have to give to get.  Adam Smith wrote that the baker (or substitute any other profession) does not bake bread out of the goodness of his heart.  He does so for his own prosperity, and by doing so he provides a service that other people need.

The American spirit has always been selfish, as it is human nature to be selfish.  If I am robbing you, then that is a bad form of selfishness where I am using force, but if hypothetically I write an iPhone app that you need, then this is a voluntary exchange where both parties get something they want, so both parties benefit.  The problem with the government is that it engages in involuntary exchanges, because if it was voluntary then the government wouldn't need to use force to achieve its aims.  The problem with involuntary exchanges is that one party benefits at the expense of another.


--

Friday, July 20, 2018

Korea


With some 2.6 million forced laborers, North Korea is world's leading villain in modern day slavery, according to estimates in a new report.

One in 10 people live under modern slavery in the secretive nation, with the "vast majority being forced to work by the state,"


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-north-korea-modern-day-slavery-20180719-story.html




Why Doesn't the Queen of England Need a Passport?

Fwd: ISIS inspired Berkeley graduate plotted to kill 10,000 in San Francisco

A graduate of Berkeley High School in California, who reportedly told authorities he wanted to help ISIS kill 10,000 people in the San Francisco Bay Area, pleaded guilty to federal charges Wednesday, 

Amer Sinan Alhaggagi, 23, of Oakland, pleaded guilty to trying to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, possession of device-making equipment and identity theft, said officials of the state's Department of Justice.

Alhaggagi allegedly opened several Twitter and Facebook accounts in 2016 for ISIS supporters. He then allegedly told an undercover FBI agent that he wanted to kill 10,000 people in the Bay Area with bombs and rat-poison-laced cocaine, 

He met with the undercover agent, pointed out locations for terrorist attacks and brought three backpacks to be used in a future attack to a storage locker, 



Sunday, July 1, 2018

In China, 'Free Trade' Means Steal What You Want

China's been fighting dirty against American business for years. China steals something between $225 billion to $600 billion worth of fashion designs, pharmaceutical formulas and new technologies from U.S. companies every year, according to the Commission on Theft of American Intellectual Property. Previous U.S. presidents did nothing but negotiate. That's like watching a burglar strip your house and asking him, "Can we talk?" At last, an American president picked up a weapon -- tariffs -- to fight back.

Not a minute too soon. The stealing is getting worse. Politicians naively said admitting China to the World Trade Organization in 2001 would push it toward a free market economy observing the rule of law. Magical thinking.

From the start, China violated WTO rules, knocking off American products and selling them as the real deal. A staggering 88 percent of counterfeit goods seized are from China and Hong Kong, according to Homeland Security. It's like the Chinese thought "free market" meant steal what you want.

Steal it or extort it. American companies doing business in China are pressured to transfer proprietary technology to a local partner. China promised to stop that arm-twisting but broke its word.

Now China is abandoning any pretense of respecting intellectual property. President Xi Jinping's official economic policy, called Made in China 2025, elevates technology theft to official status. The government politely calls it "the assimilation and absorption of imported technology." China plans to steal its way to economic dominance and end dependence on foreign suppliers.

American companies can't thrive under this threat. Our advantage in world markets isn't cheap labor or cheap materials. It's ideas

American Superconductor Corporation was almost put out of business, its stock value driven down 96 percent, when a Chinese wind turbine maker stole its technology and flooded the Chinese market with copies.

But if Beijing's plan proceeds, these U.S. companies will be shut out of China in a decade, and will have to compete in the rest of the world against Chinese companies that stole their technology and enjoy low-cost financing from Chinese state banks

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/20/in_china_free_trade_means_steal_what_you_want_137322.html


Liberal says build the wall...

The Democrats need to accept that they lost the last presidential election for a reason, and that their opponent's main campaign pledge was to tackle illegal immigration, with a wall at the southern border as the centerpiece. Completely resisting a legitimate agenda based on a clear campaign promise — well, it reminds me of the Republicans with Obamacare.

And there is clearly an adamant, persistent segment of the public that sees the crisis of illegal immigration as a vital one. They're not alone. Cast an eye at Brexit Britain, newly populist Italy, Macron's France, and even Merkel's Germany as it heaves in response to mass immigration from the developing world. This is a huge force in Western politics in every country. It may be the primary one. Millions of people are on the move right now, fleeing war and poverty and persecution. The vast migration from south to north, from poverty and chaos to opportunity and order in the West may be just beginning. Climate change will surely only make it worse. Finding the right balance between reason and compassion is essential if we are not going to further tear this country apart, or witness ever more humanitarian catastrophes, or see what's left of the West go under

So give him his fucking wall. He won the election. He is owed this. It may never be completed; it may not work, as hoped. But it is now the only way to reassure a critical mass of Americans that mass immigration is under control, and the only way to make any progress under this president. And until the white working and middle classes are reassured, we will get nowhere. Don't give it to him for nothing, of course

If all this sounds like appeasing a bigot, I understand. But better to see it, I think, as a way to address the legitimate concerns, fears, and worries of a large number of Americans who feel like strangers in their own land.

And equally, the Democrats who are currently posturing are playing a good card badly. They give off the appearance, as Hillary Clinton did, of making no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, favoring de facto open borders, and calling anyone who disagrees with them a white supremacist. Until they recognize that illegal immigration is a huge and legitimate problem, and until they propose a set of actual policy proposals to end it humanely and efficiently, they run the risk of another 2016 in 2020.

And this is what Miller and Bannon want. They want to turn the fall elections and the next presidential contest into a polarizing, fearmongering referendum on illegal immigration

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/to-end-the-border-crisis-for-good-give-trump-his-wall.html