Jump to content

The American Economy


Foxtrot

Recommended Posts

As I said in the 'government talking about banning replica weapons' thread, if you want to talk about the American Economy, past, present, and future, it belongs here - off topic - and not in a thread concerning the banning of airsoft guns.

 

One sample does not a population make. And steel tariffs and steel. That whole thing was plain illegal with no justification other than self preservation over and above all others.

 

"The largest margin of any race that was to deemed to be that close." Sounds much like spin to me. or completely meaningless.

 

More positives, maybe. But its more important to me what the positives and negatives are than how many.

 

And who is anybody to judge whether or not someone derseves to die? Who gave anybody that right?

 

In the wrong situation guns do more harm than good. When a gun appears the whole psychology of the situation changes. A gun is designed to be totally lethal. Some of the less lethal methods are useful because some one is less likely to die. I've never read anywhere that the police have been blamed for a "Accidental Shooting" whoever said it would probably get sued, alot.

 

In the hands a trained officer, accidental is not a good word. When you know what you are doing, it can be hard to pull accidentally.

 

 

To this, I simple respond:

 

One sample of the population? I'm sorry you think that, but the steel industry was America's largest industry at one time - till the forign compition, who is very illegal by the same standards that said America's Tariffs were illegal - started to make, and dump steel onto america's docks.

 

Yes, The american tariffs were out of self preservation, no doubt it. Now, ask your self this - I'm not sure where you live, I assume it's the UK. So I'll put it in your terms, but first a little bit of history.

 

Between the mid 60's and late 80's in America, the closure of steel mills, auto production plants, and rubber producing lost between 13 and 16 million jobs in america. An actual number cannot be truely found due to the years it happened - and all the jobs that relie on those plants for business. Did any one care at the time that Forign imports were destorying america? Yes, do people still care, Yes. Does any one listen to the blue collar worker any more, or ever? No, they don't. Liberal, Consevitive, asshat, doesn't matter.

 

So, in your terms I'll put it.

 

Say the UK was a major steel producing country for a long period of time - then forign countries started to produce it, and Illegally *By WTO Standards* Dump it onto UK Docks. This method forces the closure of steel producing plants - causing millions of jobs to be lost, and billions of pounds to be lost as well. Your goverment had to make a choice:

 

1. To let the dumping continue, and people to be unemployeed.

 

2. To raise the tariffs on said products that were being dumped - breaking other WTO standards, but saving their jobs, and their people.

 

The answer seems clear to me - but I guess I'm an isolationist. I really don't care about other countries, as long as my fellow country man (from what ever country it may be) has a job, and is able to have a roof over his head, food on his table, and clothes on his back. And these are ALL items that the goverment should not be supplying to people free of charge, because it puts a burden on the people who are lucky enough to have jobs - and thus forcing more people into poverty via taxes.

 

Do I care if millions of people are laid off in other countries? Yes, I do care, but I put my own fellow country men before them - because they are the ones that would fight along side me in a war - they are the ones that pay the taxes along with me - they are the ones I rely on for products. It's just one big circle. People use each other for the products/services they need, and I would MUCH rather buy from people that are inside the country I am living in. (This goes for any country, US, UK, Canada, Germany, China, doesn't matter.)

 

Unless its physically impossible, or WAY too costly to produce a product inside your own country - there should be no reason to import it. Compition is good - to a point. Driving prices down, is good - to a point. When it comes to the point of unemploying people, then thats bad.

 

Either way, what people are doing to the United States is Illegal by ANY Standard. Mexico has CLEARLY broken the rules of NAFTA So many times it's not even funny. China has CLEARLY broken the WTO dumping rules so many times it's just getting old now.

 

When world orginizations like the WTO, and the UN, are rendered ineffective by peoples sympathy, then those laws can no longer apply to any country. Thus, there is a break down in law, thus it is up to the countries to deal with it them selves. Which, the US has proven it will many times now, like it or not, its how things should be.

 

Guns *can* do more harm then good, they can also do more good then harm.

 

This happened to a friend of mine, she happens to be a paramedic, and trained in self defenese.

 

While entering a house after a phone call from the local police, there was a mentally challenged man who need to get to the hospital asap because he had injured him self falling down a set of stairs. She entered the house, and the owner/care taker of the Young, mentally chanlleged man had a gun, and held it to her. Trained in self defenese, and well versed with firearms, she turned, pulled the gun away from the man, and forced him down to the ground with it till police arrived to arrest the man.

 

 

Exaple where a gun, once in the wrong hands, was taken away and used for good. Theres countless examples where gusn have spared the lives of INNOCENT people. Yes, guns can take lives, but they can also change the situation where lives can be spared.

 

As for trained police officers, and accidents, this is what happened locally in town across the city from me, Poland Ohio.

 

A Police officer was approaching a car durring a routine traffic stop (happened to be speeding.) He was approaching the car, as normal, when he saw something come out the passenger's window. Drawing his gun, he approached, the suspect rolled down his window. As he came closer, the driver reached into the console of the car, and started to draw out, what looked like a gun, and the police officer shot the driver.

 

In the back of the car was a brick of weed, out the window was thrown a gram of coke, and in the glove compartment was a .22 caliber 6 shooter.

 

 

Now, in the drivers hands was not a gun - but the police officer, after all that, IMO had every right to defend him self in a suspecious situation such as that. Considering all the other offenses, the police officer was doing his job.

 

Unfortunately, the liberal media in the area forgot to include that the guy was a known drug dealer (unknown the police officer, because he was nothing more then highway patrol) and a past fellon who was out on parol. (known, because you find that infomation via liceanse plates.)

 

Accident? Yes, its unfortunate that the guy was shot. Justified? Yes it was, if I thought some one was pulling a gun on me - I would damn well shoot him too. In a situation like that - my life comes first. And I'm sure, if you were in that situation - you would of done the same thing, especially if you had the same training. If you wouldn't of, I'm sorry, I don't think you should be a police officer.

 

(and I'm not refering to any one in particular, just general. In this case.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to your experiences at home.

 

UK was a major coal manufacturer, but foreign imports have closed down most of the coal mines here.

 

And countries taking the law into their own hands, is it how thing should be done? So what is the point in any of the international bodies at all? Others breaking laws gives no right to any others to do the same.

 

"But mummy, all the bigger boys do it!"

 

The paramedic example proves what exactly? She was in danger because of more liberal gun laws.

 

What does her training say about a shotgun at 8 yards?

 

The other example is sadly out of context in the UK. Not many people carry guns around in their cars.

 

You say guns can save lives, and then provide two examples were there was danger because of guns.

 

Anyway this is going nowhere. It started when I didn't want to move to the US. I still don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was referring to your experiences at home.

 

UK was a major coal manufacturer, but foreign imports have closed down most of the coal mines here.

 

And countries taking the law into their own hands, is it how thing should be done? So what is the point in any of the international bodies at all? Others breaking laws gives no right to any others to do the same.

 

"But mummy, all the bigger boys do it!"

 

The paramedic example proves what exactly? She was in danger because of more liberal gun laws.

 

What does her training say about a shotgun at 8 yards?

 

The other example is sadly out of context in the UK. Not many people carry guns around in their cars.

 

You say guns can save lives, and then provide two examples were there was danger because of guns.

 

Anyway this is going nowhere. It started when I didn't want to move to the US. I still don't.

 

Exactly - no point in international bodies any ways, no one listens to them any more - big country, or small, so why even bother? (Good example of this: Iran, and North Korea.)

 

I just brought the fact of her being a paramedic up to clear up the reason why she was going into said location - and being liberal gun laws? I have the right to bare arms, I have had the right since this country start, why change it now?

 

Shotgun at 8 yards? Hope to god he's a bad shot and is using a slug.

 

 

No one's gonna force you to live here for ever, I would understand living with your parents till you get out on your own (if thats the case) or a new job (if thats the case) but beyond that - No one's tieing you down and saying the boarders are closed, you can't get out.

 

I'm happy in the US, I just don't think that we need to be dicked around like whats going on. It's always been survival of the fittest, and I hate to break it to the people around the world - the US is an extremely large landmass with alot of natural resources.

 

I don't really want to go into the whole gun vs anti-gun thing, because theres pros and cons of both sides - it's all into that persons opinions really, mine is obliviously pro-gun. I ment for this topic to be about the past, present, and future of the american economy. And my stance on that is (For people who live in the US): United States first, Other countries later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if I've misread comments made here Foxtrot, I'm tired after another day of teaching so if I've misinterpreted jsut say and I'll get rid of this as soon as I notice your reply... :)

 

The subject of placing a tariff upon imports is a tough issue. On one hand as a government of any capitalist society you're under pressure to participate in the the global market on one hand and yet on the other to support and encourage homegrown industry. Here in the UK this is just as much a concern. Especially for a male from a working class northern background, where the coal and steel industries effectively dominated the area in which I live and in which my family worked.

 

As has already been said, the coal industry has been forced effectively into extinction here, and such is the case with the steel industry. Here this is partly the result of privitisation due to the 80s tories (think of the republicans I guess...) government which had taken exception to the amount of political power the trade unions were gathering here, but that's beside the point. The point is that we've seen the same problem with cheaper foreign imports destroying our traditional economies.

 

Now I'm a marxist but I'm going to try my darndest to not criticise capitalism here as that's not what we're discussing really. But what we can say is that the capitalist ideology is one which is quite ruthless. The strong (or in market terms, those who profit the most) survive and prosper, whereas the weak (those that struggle to compete) falter and die.

 

This unfortunately has been the case with our coal and steel industries, and from what you've said (my home from home was in Vermont, so I'm not too up on the steel industry there sadly...), it appears to be the same with your steel industry too. Cheaper imports drive local industry out of business. It's very bad for the people who we know in those industries. But I'm going to have to sound really cold-blooded here (trust me I'm not as I don't like saying this), but say that this is globalisation for you. And sadly whilst globalisation remains the prevalent ideology for 'civilised' society, this will continue to be the case (perhaps it always will, I can't see outside this ideology as I'm part of it).

 

Nothing, no matter how much we want them to, can last forever. It's sad but true. Most industries eventually expire, no matter what steps anyone makes to try to prevent. But what CAN be done is like you seem to have said is what the Bush administration has done, which is to apply a tax / levy of some form on steel imports.

 

I believe he's done this in the past with other imports (such as bananas!), and initially it can work. Local industry buys local goods as it's cheaper. But (and this is where I hypothesise based upon history, so bear with me, lol), ultimately I think that this only delays the inevitable. In the UK in the early 19th century the Tory government of the time applied a similar tax to imported corn for example with a similiar driving force. I seem to remember corn being one of our big exports in the 18th century, but by the 19th century cheap foreign imports were having a similiar effect.

 

The tax worked initially, but if I remember right demand started to exceed supply and the government was forced to eventually readopt a laissez faire approach. Whatever the reason was anyway, the industry pretty much died (the same way our agricultural industry sadly has now, thanks to cheep argintinian imports, etc). And the long and convoluted point I was wanting to get to EVENTUALLY was this:

 

You can delay the inevitable, but you can't prevent it.

 

So uh...yeah. Anyway please don't take this as me attacking anyone or anyone else's beliefs. This is just my opinion on the matter and could easily be flawed (if I'm even talking about the right thing). I don't like the fact that local industries go bust, that right now thousands of people are being made unemployed down the road because everyone's downsizing and moving their businesses to Indian and China where they can exploit an unjust foreign economy. I fact I feel dang mad about it. But ultimately, that's how I guess it is...

 

Btw If any americans read this, please try and get your government to go easy on immigration policy for Brits....I want to move to Vermont in a few years! :'(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post marlowe, I may not support the theories you tossed out - but still an excellent post, and no worries on agression/anger/etc and especially no reason to delete it.

 

 

But, a few things I'm going to nit pick on...

 

Yes, capitalist are very cold-blooded by nature. And I admit, I very well am one of those. I put my self, family, and friends infront of anyone else in this world. And when it comes to a game of world politics, I put my fellow country man - no matter the circumstances.

 

The point of tariffs is not to make the other company - forign - to force them out of business (Or at least, that is not how I would do it.) The point of tariffs I see, is to level the playing field of all things. When china starts paying it's workers as much as american's get paid, and also are offered the same benfits as us, then we can knock the tariffs off. That way, the playing field is level for all companies. Then, after that it's a matter of Quality. Like it or not - the American Steel process has been proven to be a much higher quality process then the Japanese or Chinese process. I'm not going to get into the technical details why - but if you want to know, I can. (Grandpa was an Engineer at LTV steel, which was recently bought by ISG.)

 

As I said also - I'm rather an Isolationist. I don't want to be on the global market, for every product out there. If there is a good, or product that the US or what ever country in question CANNOT produce, or get, then there is a reason to get it from a forign producer. (Example of this would be Japan - They don't have many natural resources, thus have a reason to import them.)

 

About Bush's actions - As you said.. your not very up on it, but just from the short lived tariffs, it has saved 3 local steel mills around here, and allowed ISG to buy 2 more, and kept their doors open. I know one local company, who was about to go Chapter 11 (Bankrupt) now has their order books filled for the next 3 years!

 

About other things - I.e. Banana's, I have no idea... if its true, then shame. I don't know too many places in american that grow banana's. Tariffs should be used as an action to save certain industries - not to spark new ones.

 

 

I beleive we're on the same page as sorts - just on opposite sides nearly. I hope this cleares a little bit of my beliefs up for you. I'm a very big isolastiost.

 

As for easing up brits into america. Of course, Same with Canadians, Germans, French, and other law respecting people. I don't think though (no offense to these people) that the 2 million illegal immigrants in America should be allowed to stay. Something that bush is very keen on - them staying. Am I pointing out that some countries should be favored over others when it comes to immigrants? Very much so. Countries that support the same ideals, work ethics, and economies as us, should have priviliges over those who share different ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, glad you took my thoughts as they were intended Fox. After experiences on other forums I'm pretty paranoid about commenting on things for fear of rocking the boat (never ask a satanist if they're not just an atheist, when they try to explain to you that modern satanism is not about worshiping satan...religion big no no :( )

 

There's nothing wrong with being an isolationist. Why do you think I want to move to Vermont of all places? :lol: Seriously though I agree that tariffs can prolong an industry, as has been the case in your neck of the woods, and I totally agree that they help to defend national interests. All I was trying to say is that sadly all industries have a life expectency these days it seems.

 

The banana thing came about because EU imports were threatening US interests I think. It annoyed a lot of people over here as it came about at the same time as the declaration of the eventual forming of an EU super army that would rival the US army in size (Colin Powell was underststandably not amused...) , but I suspect that that was simply a case of bad timing.

 

And as for immigrants...Don't get me started. As a teacher I have to be careful what I say these days, but the UK has a seeming reputation with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers as being a 'soft touch', to the extent that they form communities in france of people waiting in make shift camps to try and smuggle themselves here.

 

And our pretty liberal laws mean that we respect their human rights and provide them with legal representation and housing and benefits which many native working class families here resent, leading to growing animosity between the native and 'asylum' communities that have cropped up around here, and an unfortuante rise in nationalist political groups.

 

It's all a mess really, and no simple answer. On one side there are many legitimate asylum seekers whose rich cultural backgrounds enrich our own, but as we are a democratic society we allow the formation of communities which are effectively a home from home - people live in our country but don't bother to learn the language (never mind about learning the native culture, values and beliefs, and showing respect for them...). Add to that the minority of people who come here because put simply, our liberal policy and fervour for human rights means our state can be seen as a good meal ticket for those who have no interest in working or in contributing to the culture that supports them. The result is a lot of interracial animosity that thankfully at my college is not an issue (as the asylum seekers who attend are thankfully almost always those who are interested in maintaining their own cultures yet willing to act as responsible and respectful citizens here...), but which I know at another college just ten minutes walk away is a very big issue...:(

 

Damn. You got me onto the urban pseudoliberal attitudes that are leading England on the road to ruin. I better stop now before I get any worse :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late, so I'm just going to add a couple of my thoughts.

 

On world economics; it all evens out, eventually.

 

Once upon a time, the US outsourced to and imported from Japan, after a while Japans standard of living increased and the economy got going strong. After that both the US and Japan began to outsource to and import from China, and Chinas standard of living and economy went up. Now the US, Japan, and China are outsourceing to and importing from India, connect the dots. So on and so forth until the world is finally a level playing field. Tariffs impede that, but they sure as hell aren't stopping it, so it's kind of a useless gesture in the long run.

 

I couldn't tell you what the world would be like if everybody got the same pay for the same work all around the world, and buying power was standardized, but the day is coming, eventually. I will bet that if things keep going the same way and barring a third world war or some world catastrophe, half the worlds population will be at a United States/Western Europe standard of living.

 

 

Second, on illegal immigration and immigration in general, I say let them come. It is the land of opportunity after all, and vast majority of americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, so I welcome them with open arms.

 

On top of that, immigrants are willing to do work that the average american will simply not do. Whens the last time anyone here put in a 12 hour shift on the floor of a slaughter house? How about 80 hours a week working in a field at harvest time? Or a graveyard shift cleaning out toilets at an office building?

 

I would bet nobody. I know I sure as hell would not unless I could not find any other work whatsoever, and even then I probably choose to sit on my *albatross* at home being on welfare. Even as big a liberal I am I don't believe in giving people money with no responsibility. Free housing? Sure. Free healthcare? Sure. Help finding work? Sure. Fulfill those three things and you have no reason to hand out cash. If your that *beep* lazy, then you deserve to starve to death.

 

The movie A Day Without A Mexican highlights the fact that the world as you know it would practical grind to a halt if you didn't have immigrants doing the dirty work.

 

 

Finally, on ISG, it has a dark side. It deliberately waiting until the companies it bought out filed Chapter 11 so that it didn't have to pay out retirement and such to former employees. It was cheaper that way, and with a corporation, especially a US corporation, it's all about the bottom line. The lobbying for tariffs is primarily so Joe Bigshot can buy an extra Gulfstream jet and an extra 2 weeks vacation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey malowe, nice points your making, I tend to agree with them up to the point about immigrants- though I do understand you're offering as fair an argument as possible-

 

the UK does not have a particularly liberal immigration policy, and distinctions must be made between "asylum seeker" and "illegal Immigrant"- these are two very distinct and different things which unfortunately the slightly more reactionary amongst us tend not to recognise:

 

someone classified as an "asylum seeker" is someone engaged in the legal process of seeking asylum- if they win this legal process, it means that we are under legal obligation to protect that person and not send them back to the place from which they have fled.

 

An illegal immigrant is someone who has NO LEGAL RIGHT to be here- they haven't been offered work, aren't in any physical danger back home, and who either are not engaged in a legal process to obtain a works/residence visa, or have been rejected from these processes, or who have had their visa expire or revoked.

 

now, Britain is perhaps seen as a useful destination, but lets not forget where we are geographically located- on an island off the north-west of Europe.

 

To get to us by any means other than flying, people have to go through their country and every country that lies in between- it is no surprise that the largest number of asylum seekers and immigrants settle in neighbouring countries- Chad, for example, takes in more people from their neighbouring states than the UK see from everywhere else.

 

The communities in France you mention are often people who have been either rejected from a european country as asylum seekers or imigrants, or are waiting on the interminably long French process. Britain is pretty much there last option unless they want to start heading back the way they came under there own steam with the risk of being deported home. Obviously in this circumstance, you'd be mad not to at least attempt to get across the channel.

 

Now, I'm not saying that there are't a sizeable minority of those people who AREN't genuine asylum seekers, who will seek to claim states benefit. Indedd, as such people aren't allowed to work in the UK until they have been cleared by the immigration office, its just as well, or they'd starve to death or die of exposure.

 

For me, the question is always best framed by putting yourself in the position of the other guy: what would I do if I was some dude running from a scrap in Iraq or afghanistan (incidentally, these two countries are, unsurprisingly enough, two of the leading places of origins for asylum seekers and immigrants at the moment): what would Ido in their position? I'd try and go somewhere a bit less likely to kill me. pure and simple.

 

Now, economic immigrants are a slightly trickier thing, but then, the same thing applies- if I'm living in some poor village somewhere like Romania or Sierra leone, what am I gonna do, given the opportunity to try and live somewhere that actually will try to care for you and your family, where standard of living is higher, and where your children will have the opportunity of a good education and a good start in life? let me think...

 

As to the cultural issues, yes, you're right, there simply isn't enough integration attempted, but this is at all levels of the community, not simply the immigrant section- how many reasonably well-off white folk do you know willing to live next door to a family of people who've been granted asylum? not many, I'll wager.

 

What happened in places like Bradford, for eg, is that the predominantly white, right wing council decided to put all its immigrants into the same, cheap end of town- fair enough, you might think, why give them the best seats in the house?

 

of course, this led to social disintegration and clear, impassable divides in communities, many of them either not wanting to, or simply not given the opportunity to, learn languages, trade experiences or develop the necessary social skills and understanding to get by around the locals in an alien country. result? race riots.

 

Obviously all this liberal namby-pambiness needs to be balanced with a bucketful of salt and a fair bit of hard-headed "realism" (never liked that word- indicates realists are somehow right, when they aren't, they simply seek to perpetuate a continuation of how the world is, rather than develop its potential", but nonetheless great disservice is done to people seeking a better, safer life for their families everyday by opinions best left confined to the frontpage of the Sun or the Daily Express.

 

No they aren't all blameless. but then neither by an incredibly long way, are we.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't tell you what the world would be like if everybody got the same pay for the same work all around the world, and buying power was standardized, but the day is coming, eventually.  I will bet that if things keep going the same way and barring a third world war or some world catastrophe, half the worlds population will be at a United States/Western Europe standard of living.

 

Considering how wealthy we are, both the UK and USA have enormous populations living below the poverty line. You will always find a substanial wealth gap between rich and poor in any capitalist society (an "underclass" is required to flip burgers and clean toilets), and the current rightward swing of Western politics is set to make this worse rather than better. Outsourcing work to cheap labour havens just speeds the process up.

 

Point is the "Western standard of living" does not apply to millions of people who actually live here, and those numbers are set to increase (as they are in the US) rather than vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly- in fact, if you think about it, the average university graduate in the US/UK is exponentially worse off financially than a farm labourer in chile- why? the farm labourer doesn't have the shocking levels of debt that the student has!

 

of course, there MAY be the opportunity to get a job from your education, so long as you've done something "vocational", but then anyone whos sat in on a university Computer Science lecture knows how many hundreds of people IN THEIR CLASS ALONE they have to compete with for work.

 

the great irony of it all is this thing called "the western standard of living"- the vast majority of us cannot afford, for example, a pension to see us into old age- Blair has announced, in relation to this, that higher taxes and a higher age of retirement are the answers.

 

of course he does. He's a wealthy london barrister from a well-to-do family who's never in his life tried to eke a living on the national minimum wage. He has no understanding of how the vast majority of people in this country live- on the poverty line, hand-to-mouth. these majority don't make enough money to contribute effectively to a pension, let alone save anything else. Now bear in mind the fact that, unlike thirty years ago "jobs for life" (unless you're a politician or self-employed as a jobbing aristocrat) no longer exist: people don't contribute to works pensions scheme because their jobs are frequently unsecured, and when they do contribute, they find they loose this money when eithe they get made redundant or, as has happened a great deal since Thatcher, company pension schemes suddenly "vanish", making the boss and his cronies nice and minted, and the rest of the company shafted.

 

The only way to increase people's ability or desire to save for old age is to create a combination of events: yes, higher taxes (so long as those taxes actually go towards pensions, rather than straight to the military- how the hell can a country say its pensions fund is in crisis but can still declare the MoD has an unlimited amount to spend on trashing iraq?! what nonsense is that?), yes increase the age of retirement from 65 to 70 ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS. But something MUST be done about the cost of living in relation to the rubbish wages in this country.

 

Anybody out there tried renting a room from someone other than your folks, paying that incidious council tax, while trying to keep on top of the mounting debts you incurred at uni, and eating decently on £5 an hour for 40hrs (sorry, 37.5 hrs- wouldn't do to pay you for your lunchbreak, would it?) 5 days a week? cos I bloody well have and its not possible unless you subsist on tesco value baked beans and hybenate over the weekend.

 

raise the minimum wage, lower VAT, or cut the cost of living, and I might just start thinking of saving a few pennies for my pension.

 

Had a mate go to sweden a month ago. He'd prepared himself for the usual "oh, sweden's VERY expensive compared to here" expectation, only to find he got on rather well with his money, paid less rent for a weeks stay than he would for three days in his long-term flat here (a flat with no shower and no heating except in the living room, I might add), ate well, and generally found it to be very civilised, and not pricey at all.

 

and, of course, a lot of them were pretty well educated, what with all the free education they have over there.

 

the UK has well and truely gone to hell in a handbag, and I'm sick of it. I'm sick of paying three pound for a beer, or having to pay £90 a month council tax in a damn city where they don't even collect the bins or have flat pavements, or employ someone to pick up the litter in the park. I'm sick of being underpaid for my labour and still being taxed one days worth of money by a government who gives nothing back in return.

 

PS- ever wonder where all that lovely national insurance that everyone pays in this country goes? did you know that if you don't work full time for the full tax year, that NI contribution doesn't go down in your name, meaning you can't ever claim it back? do you know how many millions of people are paying this hidden taxation when they are in no position to ever reclaim it as they are working part-time or in temporary positions?

 

lets put it this way- none of my friends are in "steady" jobs, its all agency work or temporary, 3 month contracts. We're all educated, all up to our eyeballs in debt, and all unable to get a half-way decent job where the employer commits to the employee before expecting its pound of flesh in this country- and that even goes for a fellow airsofter with a 1st class degree in engineering.

 

And here we are, white western britons, the lords of bloody creation, pushing everyone else around because we're so obviously capable of running the show better than some dude in his own country.

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

(arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh its good to get a rant out of my system again! flame at will, fellow arniesians, the rant has been done, and nothing short of an act of Nuno will make it otherwise!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, thanks for making the definition Harry, and for being another individual who's willing to take my comments as they're intended, not as malicious attacks upon anyone or any society.

 

You're totally correct to stress the difference between the two for those unsure as to the difference. Please be assured however that as someone who teaches ESOL in an FE college that I'm familiar with both terms, and wouldn't risk using them if I wasn't confident as to the differences.

 

You're right in that I did use both in the same breath, but I recognise that both do not carry the same meaning, and never intended to give the impression that an asylum seeker is here illegally, so my apologies if that is how it came across.

 

I think I should probably explain (now that I'm more awake :lol: ) I referred to both because I feel the justification can be applied to both, and because the term 'illegal' is vague at best - I tend to get pretty sceptical in regards to such terms. An asylum seeker only becomes an illegal immigrant if they feel to meet the arbitrary standards of governmental criteria, and choose to remain nevertheless.

 

Understandably when you read 'illegal' you read 'bad' - which is perfectly sensible and responsible. Unfortunately as we all know here is that what's allowed or prevented by law isn't always good or bad - this is much the same case from experience with 'illegal' immigrants. I've met many who I believe have good reason to stay here, not least of all because as free human beings they should have a choice to live where they please.

 

Unfortunately for each of these illegal immigrants there are however the other sort. The best analogy (which will land me in lots of trouble but meh) is that of the job centre - when I was on the dole after first finishing uni, for every 2 or three people genuinely hunting for a job or with genuine reasons for being unable, there was another individual who was playing the system. I'm not criticising that, but that's simply how it is (in Rotherham anyway... :rolleyes: ).

 

And I totally agree with you that idiotic housing schemes which place refugees and other such asylum seekers into large housing developments rather than dispersing them across an area are at least totally to blame for the issue of the forming of subcultures. However from personal experiences of working with refugees, I've found that for every few who are genuinely interested in the country to which they have moved, and in participating in an exchange of cultures whereby their own diverse backgrounds are valued in exchange for the values of the country they have selected to seek refuge in, there are sadly individuals who have reacted in all manners of less than complimentary ways when I suggested the same thing to them, and it is with these individuals (who are always the pain in the *albartroth* in a lesson, lol) who I have to take exception...

 

Er, anyway, hope that clarifies why I said what I did more and makes me look less like a Daily Mail reader.... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

To sean:

 

ISG buying out companies after chapter 11 - Yes, it sucks that those people lost their retirement. It really does, I feel bad for those people. But, at the same time, which would you rather have? 500,000 people with out jobs, or 100,000+ people that are retired with no retirement? I had to sound cold blooded - but the second of which sounds better then the first.

 

Would the world come to a grinding halt without the Mexican? Yes and no. I for one have spent 12+ hours taking apart pipes, ankle high in highly flamable solvent before. Yes, it sucks, but guess what people have to do it. My point is exactly the same as yours - make normal americans do it, because when people need a job, they will do it. But, the employer will have to pay more out of pocket to have a typical american do it. This is better for the employee, but worst for the Employer. So, Joe Bigshot will have less vacation, and not be able to buy the new BMW once a week.

 

We're on the same page pretty much about welfare too. I can understand helping people - to a point. If your on welfare, be on it for the limit time, get a job, and get on yourself on your feet. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be paying for some one else life. Lower my taxes, and make those people get a job - or let them go, one of those two options. If you're laid off, trying to find a job and run out of money - thats what welfare is for. But when your just not trying to help your self, then I don't want to pay you to be lazy.

 

 

As for america immigration: Let the ones who can get in legally come, sure, thats our practice. Those who cut the fence and run across the boarder - no. They can go back to their home country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marlowe- those comments weren't really aimed at you, I just felt the distinction hadn't been made too clearly and less experienced people (ie daily mail readers), would fail to draw a distinction, and so carry on with the usual asylum seeker bashing nonsense.

 

actually, had a conversation about asylum/immigration issues with my sister not too long ago- she was of the opinion that immigration was a problem that needed clamping down on, until I reminded her that she was married to an australian immigrant and was thinking of migrating to France with him due to the lower cost of living- essentially, she would be an economic immigrant.

 

She had failed to make the link between what applies to her and her husband and what applies to people who aren't, dare I say it, white westerners- she'd automatically assumed, not in a necessarily racist way, that somehow she was entitled to move where she liked, for whatever reasons she liked, but other people were not, which is a little hypocritical.

 

and as to the welfare thing, you know what, one of the things I'm proud of about being British is that I come from a land that has a welfare state, that despite the best efforts of successive politicians and tory voters and skinflint "taxpayers" who seem to think their tax should only go to themselves or people they want it to- see Tony Hancock's "the blood donor" if you want a great metaphor on this- still exists, still limps along looking after the people who live in this country.

 

If this means that we get a bunch of bums taking advantage, then so be it, anything else (not offering welfare, or offering it on a timed basis- great if your economy is on the up, rubbish if it isn't, as there won't be jobs for you to take), are simply inhumane and elitist.

 

I'm happy to pay taxes into a welfare system because I know its there to bail me out should something go wrong, its there to help my children and their friends through education, and its there to help people who are sick. What kind of person would I be to want these things for myself and my own, but then seek to deny them to others? selfish, thats what, and the whole point of a welfare state is that it is supposed to be selfless.

 

A country that doesn't look after its society, be they people who can trace their lineage back to the domesday book, or people fresh off the boat, isn't doing its job properly, and I can't see why it should command my loyalty, trust or respect.

 

yes, people will abuse it, but thats a small price to pay, in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.