5 ms·

A basic income is infeasible with open borders.

samsolomon 11y ago
Wouldn't you have to apply to become a citizen tor receive basic income though? And wouldn't this encourage illegal immigrants to try and become citizens, which I think would be a good thing.
- kingmanaz 11y ago
  >Wouldn't you have to apply to become a citizen tor receive basic income though? Aren't the standards of citizenship currently being eroded to suit whichever ethnic-voting-block the party in power happens to be pandering to today? Today's illegals are defacto citizens as evidenced by America's bankrupt ESL schools, hospitals, and "citizen-only" social services. Cutting a check for the rest of the Earth's six billion people who "make it" to America is a recipie for exponentially more economic-refugee-cum-colonists. This is how life boats sink.
  - chiaro 11y ago
    This ignores the fact that new citizens are also workers and contribute to, rather than drain, the economy. Median estimates of the effects of opening world borders predict a doubling of GGP (Gross Global Product). http://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/ http://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/
    - kingmanaz 11y ago
      Before permanently altering the demographics of a nation that was recently successful (the USA ranked highly in nearly every standard of living metric a scant few decades ago), let's try implementing social theories based on "estimates" in a nation with nothing left to lose. There are plenty of other nations available for globalist theorists to potentialy help and likely destroy.
      - anigbrowl 11y ago
        A lot of the USA' historically recent economic success had little to do with ethnic demographics and a whole lot to do with age demographics and the fact that USA's industrial capacity was completely undamaged following WW2, unlike almost every other industrialized nation. It's easy to be #1 for an extended period when your major competitors' economies are literally a smoking ruin. While this is far from the only factor in American economic success during the 20th century, it's nonetheless a rather significant one. If we're going to talk about demographics, you should also consider the fact that the US is facing a shortage of younger workers relative to retirees: http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_version_000.pdf http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_versio...
        kingmanaz 11y ago
        >While this is far from the only factor in American economic success during the 20th century, it's nonetheless a rather significant one I believe we differ on fundamentals, and certainly on the notion of "success". A nation is more than place to make money, rather it is a home for an extended family. Economic arguments quantify away the essence of a nation: a living space set aside for the well being of progeny. Either a people is in control of its inheritance, or, its inheritance is being subsumed by another tribe. When viewed in these terms, rather than flourishing since the second World War, the United States has in fact been on a path to dissolution. And one can do better than a URL for proof of this; go to Southern California, open your eyes, and be honest. There is a reason Southern California's Anglo middle class paradise of 1880-1970 is now a squalid Latin American sweatshop; demographics is destiny. Calcutta is Calcutta because Calcuttans live there. Detroit is Detroit because Southern Blacks now live there. Etc. If this does not ring true to you, feel free to disagree with me, but please, try the alleged benefits of demographic substitution somewhere where economists will feel the pinch themselves. Given the large number of Jewish economists I've read over the years, Israel would be a prime testbed (if the nation wasn't currently sterilizing and exiling their Black Ethiopian populace). Middle class gentile globalists could start by opening the floodgates to their own gated communities and HOAs before gleefully replacing their "unwilling worker" blue-collar cousins. >If we're going to talk about demographics, you should also consider the fact that the US is facing a shortage of younger workers relative to retirees This thinking is completely backward, IMHO. The economy serves the people, the people do not serve the economy. The means is not the ends. If a people cannot afford to have sufficient numbers of children, the problem is not with the people, its with the (usurious) economy. The economy needs to be replaced, not the people.
- A_COMPUTER 11y ago
  The entire economic argument for making (illegal) immigrants citizens is that they do the work that Americans won't do and that they contribute to the economy already. If you don't have to work anymore if you're a citizen, it completely destroys that argument for immigration. Also, the part where if UBI existed, those horrible-paying jobs would have to raise their wages to get anybody to do them, which would price immigrants out of the market because natives would then be incentivized to do them.

Wouldn't you have to apply to become a citizen tor receive basic income though? And wouldn't this encourage illegal immigrants to try and become citizens, which I think would be a good thing.

kingmanaz 11y ago
>Wouldn't you have to apply to become a citizen tor receive basic income though? Aren't the standards of citizenship currently being eroded to suit whichever ethnic-voting-block the party in power happens to be pandering to today? Today's illegals are defacto citizens as evidenced by America's bankrupt ESL schools, hospitals, and "citizen-only" social services. Cutting a check for the rest of the Earth's six billion people who "make it" to America is a recipie for exponentially more economic-refugee-cum-colonists. This is how life boats sink.
- chiaro 11y ago
  This ignores the fact that new citizens are also workers and contribute to, rather than drain, the economy. Median estimates of the effects of opening world borders predict a doubling of GGP (Gross Global Product). http://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/ http://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/
  - kingmanaz 11y ago
    Before permanently altering the demographics of a nation that was recently successful (the USA ranked highly in nearly every standard of living metric a scant few decades ago), let's try implementing social theories based on "estimates" in a nation with nothing left to lose. There are plenty of other nations available for globalist theorists to potentialy help and likely destroy.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      A lot of the USA' historically recent economic success had little to do with ethnic demographics and a whole lot to do with age demographics and the fact that USA's industrial capacity was completely undamaged following WW2, unlike almost every other industrialized nation. It's easy to be #1 for an extended period when your major competitors' economies are literally a smoking ruin. While this is far from the only factor in American economic success during the 20th century, it's nonetheless a rather significant one. If we're going to talk about demographics, you should also consider the fact that the US is facing a shortage of younger workers relative to retirees: http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_version_000.pdf http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_versio...
      - kingmanaz 11y ago
        >While this is far from the only factor in American economic success during the 20th century, it's nonetheless a rather significant one I believe we differ on fundamentals, and certainly on the notion of "success". A nation is more than place to make money, rather it is a home for an extended family. Economic arguments quantify away the essence of a nation: a living space set aside for the well being of progeny. Either a people is in control of its inheritance, or, its inheritance is being subsumed by another tribe. When viewed in these terms, rather than flourishing since the second World War, the United States has in fact been on a path to dissolution. And one can do better than a URL for proof of this; go to Southern California, open your eyes, and be honest. There is a reason Southern California's Anglo middle class paradise of 1880-1970 is now a squalid Latin American sweatshop; demographics is destiny. Calcutta is Calcutta because Calcuttans live there. Detroit is Detroit because Southern Blacks now live there. Etc. If this does not ring true to you, feel free to disagree with me, but please, try the alleged benefits of demographic substitution somewhere where economists will feel the pinch themselves. Given the large number of Jewish economists I've read over the years, Israel would be a prime testbed (if the nation wasn't currently sterilizing and exiling their Black Ethiopian populace). Middle class gentile globalists could start by opening the floodgates to their own gated communities and HOAs before gleefully replacing their "unwilling worker" blue-collar cousins. >If we're going to talk about demographics, you should also consider the fact that the US is facing a shortage of younger workers relative to retirees This thinking is completely backward, IMHO. The economy serves the people, the people do not serve the economy. The means is not the ends. If a people cannot afford to have sufficient numbers of children, the problem is not with the people, its with the (usurious) economy. The economy needs to be replaced, not the people.
A_COMPUTER 11y ago
The entire economic argument for making (illegal) immigrants citizens is that they do the work that Americans won't do and that they contribute to the economy already. If you don't have to work anymore if you're a citizen, it completely destroys that argument for immigration. Also, the part where if UBI existed, those horrible-paying jobs would have to raise their wages to get anybody to do them, which would price immigrants out of the market because natives would then be incentivized to do them.