Southern Border

[SandalsParticipant 4253]

FrankOne wrote:

That said, you’re most safe in modern, large vehicle, in my opinion

You didn’t say safe, and neither did I, so i don’t know who you’re talking to and what you’re trying to prove. You said “last longer”, which is hogwash. There you go with the switcheroo to “safe” frame the facts to fit your desired result, rather than the result sitting the facts.

You don’t even realize you talk that way.

[SandalsParticipant 4253]

FrankOne wrote:

If we pay less for inputs, our output (product) costs less. That is the very DEFINITION of efficiency.

No it doesn’t. it just means you don’t know the definition of “cost”. Or “efficiency”. A five dollar broom made in China costs a WHOLE LOT MORE than a 40 dollar broom made in the USA.

But you convince yourself otherwise because you purchase equipment and your job depends on a “short term bottom line only” definition of “cost”.

Try reading Milton Freedman sometime.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Try reading Milton Freedman sometime.

First, it is Milton Friedman, NOT Freedman. I never met Milton, but I have met his son when he spoke on The Machinery of Freedom. And have read both.

It is particularly odd you would cite Milton Friedman, since he advocated UNILATERALLY dropping trade restrictions back in 1970. https://fee.org/articles/in-1970-milton-friedman-called-for-unilateral-free-trade-rather-than-retaliation-we-still-haven-t-learned-that-simple-lesson/

How would you know what my job depends upon? Purchasing shoddy equipment increases maintenance costs.

Japanese goods used to be considered ‘junk’ in the 1950’s and 1960’s; in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Japanese automakers eclipsed US automakers in quality. This is an apt description of competition driving down costs and improving quality.

I did not state that I purchased based upon cost only; there is a concept called ‘total lifetime cost’. For instance, I do not buy Chinese pipefittings, because the threads are typically poorly cut. Once China climbs the quality tree as Japan did, I would certainly consider doing so if their price is lower but they are at parity on quality.

You didn’t say safe, and neither did I, so i don’t know who you’re talking to and what you’re trying to prove. You said “last longer”, which is hogwash.

Here is what you stated:

There you go again. What the F~~~ are you talking about? There’s probably a show in your town within the next three months showcasing CARS that have LASTED 60 years. You are silver spoons sheltered, you know nothing of the world. Listen to Allentown much? Iron and coal? Chromane and steel? Union workers? College Degrees taught us nothing at all? Have fun getting into an accident in today’s Toyota Camry today – you’ll end up a St. Judes getting two replacement legs.

Look at a chart of vehicle deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png

What do you conclude?

I have already addressed the longevity issue with facts and data.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Try reading Milton Freedman sometime.

First, it is Milton Friedman, NOT Freedman. I never met Milton, but I have met his son when he spoke on The Machinery of Freedom. And have read both.

It is particularly odd you would cite Milton Friedman, since he advocated UNILATERALLY dropping trade restrictions back in 1970. https://fee.org/articles/in-1970-milton-friedman-called-for-unilateral-free-trade-rather-than-retaliation-we-still-haven-t-learned-that-simple-lesson/

How would you know what my job depends upon? Purchasing shoddy equipment increases maintenance costs.

Japanese goods used to be considered ‘junk’ in the 1950’s and 1960’s; in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Japanese automakers eclipsed US automakers in quality. This is an apt description of competition driving down costs and improving quality.

I did not state that I purchased based upon cost only; there is a concept called ‘total lifetime cost’. For instance, I do not buy Chinese pipefittings, because the threads are typically poorly cut. Once China climbs the quality tree as Japan did, I would certainly consider doing so if their price is lower but they are at parity on quality.

You didn’t say safe, and neither did I, so i don’t know who you’re talking to and what you’re trying to prove. You said “last longer”, which is hogwash.

Here is what you stated:

There you go again. What the F~~~ are you talking about? There’s probably a show in your town within the next three months showcasing CARS that have LASTED 60 years. You are silver spoons sheltered, you know nothing of the world. Listen to Allentown much? Iron and coal? Chromane and steel? Union workers? College Degrees taught us nothing at all? Have fun getting into an accident in today’s Toyota Camry today – you’ll end up a St. Judes getting two replacement legs.

Look at a chart of vehicle deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled. Link

What do you conclude?

I have already addressed the longevity issue with facts and data.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Education generally leads to higher standards of living. Whether you consider that a good or not, is a value judgment.

You can be ‘out of here’, but that doesn’t change the objective refutations of vehicle longevity, vehicle safety, or Milton Friedman’s writings.

I suppose you believe we landed on the moon too, right? Despite that NASA now admits the moon landing videos were faked, and that they don’t have the technology to go to the moon, and that, oh yeah, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to go to the moon due to the radiation exposure, which they admit on their OWN website

No, they did not. NASA DID state they re-used (and thus erased) the original tape containing footage of the first humans landing on the moon. Other copies exist and are available. ‘Erased’ is not the same as ‘faked’.

Radiation levels on the moon are only about 150 times that on Earth (depending upon whether we are talking GCR or SPE), so certainly NOT lethal.

I am guessing you also believe China, the people who don’t know how to use a toilet, landed on the far side of the moon too right?

Do you believe the iPhone is made in China at Foxconn? Or is that a conspiracy? China must have used the same fake studio as Russia to generate moon imagery. Look up a list of the top 10 tallest buildings of the world and what countries they are located in.

Chemtrails? CNN? I’ll believe in ‘chemtrails’ when the private passenger jet pilots, military jet pilots, and aeronautical engineers I know, stop laughing when someone mentions them. What part of the SCIENTIFIC explanation of condensation was not satisfactory? Have you ever observed steam paper from your auto exhaust? Do you think watching arbitrary YOUTUBE videos or observing how a steam boiler or engine works, is the better source of information?

[narwhalParticipant]

FrankOne wrote:

Free mobility promotes competition amongst governments. I certainly know the difference between a state and a country.If the federal government were much smaller, as it was a century ago, there would be more competition amongst the states — citizens would vote with their feet against corrupt State and local governments, or overzealous ones.The same is true of international boundaries. Competition promotes efficiency.

Competition amongst governments is a good thing when you are talking about governments that operate under capitalist principles. But that’s not how governments, work even in the highly capitalist governments like the US, and certainly not when citizens are not expected to pay for or earn the services they receive from the government. I’d argue that the very fact that the government gives away services without requirement any sort of payment in return completely negates any competitive benefit you’re thinking of. It doesn’t do the US any good to bring in people who will use more in medical, educational and other government services than they will ever contribute. We aren’t bringing in these people to make America better, we’re bringing them in for charity and for politicians to win political points.

That said I absolutely understand that there are certain products and services I’m getting at a discount because of the availability of cheap labor. However, that cheap labor is being taken advantage of and creating a class of worker outside of normal labor. All of this created by a government that is subverting natural competition that you claim mobility of workers supports.

And mentioning states, completely agree that the federal government has way overstepped it’s mandate in it’s control of powers designated to the states. But I will say that migration of workers between states isn’t always a good thing. For corporations, competition means you have to make good logical decisions that will give customers what they want while keeping you in business. With states, people have no idea what makes a state a good place to live, so will move to that state and corrupt it by voting for the same crap that caused their previous state such a cesspool. As a resident of Texas, I’ve seen this first hand. I seriously wound consider voting yes to a succession plan primarily to limit immigration and federal influence on the culture, politics, and economy of Texas.

Ok. Then do it.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

In economic terms, what you are asking, is whether immigrants are ‘net contributors’.

Unfortunately, since we run a deficit, even our citizens on average, aren’t ‘net contributors’, let alone, our immigrants. Our 2017 deficit in the US was $779 B / 325 M population = -$2,400 ‘contribution’ per capita. Does adding immigrants mean just multiplying that number by the number of additional immigrants? I would argue yes for benefits they directly receive, but likely NOT for defense expenditures, say, which should not increase in proportion to population. That said, new immigrants also dilute the per capita debt since total national debt is divided by more citizens.

As I discussed earlier in thread, immigrant children — their ‘free’ education is their main cost. But how is that different than, say, the cost of public school K thru 12 for a citizen? Presumably we spend ~$11,000 avg x 12 years (approximate!) = $132,000 per child, BUT that money will be recovered when the citizen reaches adulthood.

In this sense, taking in highly educated immigrants is the ‘best deal’ fiscally: We get their foreign education ‘free’ to taxpayers. AND they have high incomes, and so can be ass raped more by our progressive tax code. These immigrants, scientists and engineers, would be the segment I am most familiar with.

In the SHORT TERM, State and Local governments DO bear an immediate COST for these immigrants with children; just as if there was a ‘baby boom’ of citizens; property taxes (or other state/local funding sources) must go up to fund the schools. But long term, the immigrant WILL CONTRIBUTE taxes when they are a working adult (since few move back to their home countries). Does the immigrant cost more than adding another child born of citizens?

That said, I favor privatizing K-12 education so EVERYONE pays directly for it AND the citizen has school choice. And to get primary and secondary education (K-12) costs and quality under control.

Immigration is complicated. The foreign workers I’ve worked with most, are highly-skilled technical workers — they are brought in because industry lobbies to allow H1B’s. At the other end of the spectrum are (mostly) low-skilled workers in agriculture, manual labor, construction, etc.

That said I absolutely understand that there are certain products and services I’m getting at a discount because of the availability of cheap labor. However, that cheap labor is being taken advantage of and creating a class of worker outside of normal labor.

But is the labor really being ‘taken advantage of’? If the immigrant were NOT working bringing in the crop in the Central Valley, what would he be making in his home country? Less. So he is not being taken advantage of, from HIS perspective. In fact, he has more opportunities. His children have more opportunities.

Similarly, I’d view the guy working at Foxconn assembling iPhones as a slave. But he likely migrated there from a rural area for the better opportunity. So I view this as a win-win in both cases. You may disagree.

Now I am a very extreme individual politically: I believe in laissez-faire capitalism. So, I do not even believe in a minimum wage. The reason is, it decreases employment in the most vulnerable segment of society, preventing them from gaining skills and moving up. It also reduces total employment. That is a very controversial position and I’m sure most here, would disagree with it.

I do not believe we should have ‘programmed’ inflation, either — by not backing currency with a basket of precious metals we have inflation ‘baked in’ to our economic system.

I like Texas, by the way. I was there recently. No income tax. And while they have grown government, it isn’t nearly as bad as the Northeast or even the Midwest! The regulations aren’t as bad, either. It’s a relatively business-friendly State. I would love to see the federal government CEDE powers back TO the States.

I regard the US economy as a ‘mixed economy’; a combination of socialism and capitalism. I ‘rate’ how free a country’s government is, by what percentage of GDP, government spending comprises. In the US, we are presently at 37%. So 37% of output, is allocated by our enormous federal, state, and local governments. 100 years ago it was under 10% — a much freer country.

I would agree politicians are bringing in some ‘political refugees’ and ‘humanitarian refugees’ especially — for political points. And some of those are the least-able to be self-sufficient immigrants…

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Sandals writes: The government ADMITS they are chemtrailing.

The first thing Trump did as president was board a chemtrail plane, and there’s a picture of it, which is why big Brnnean came out swinging at Trump from the get go. Chemtrails are John’s baby, which he ADMITS on camera while delivering a speech to the See Eye Aye. Watch “What in the World are they spraying”, where the politicians are directly confronted with it on camera, and watch how they react. All these politicians are probably heavily invested in chemtrails and are making a killing off of it. It’s all out. The secret is out. It’s just not on CNN so you didn’t get the memo.

I neglected to respond to this.

First, it’s John Brennan. Second, are you referring to his speech before the Council on Foreign Relations? This speech was not TO the CIA, but Brennan was the DIRECTOR of the CIA when he delivered it. So many incorrect facts.

But the principal one, is that he doesn’t ‘admit’ to anything; he SUGGESTS geoengineering be employed in the FUTURE to combat increased global temperatures.

The full transcript is here: Link

Going to primary sources is the best way to get answers.

[SandalsParticipant 4253]

FrankOne wrote:

Here is what you stated:

I see. Yes, I did say that. I was mistaken. I was wrong. I stand corrected. You are correct: I was right after all about safety.

FrankOne wrote:

First, it is Milton Friedman, NOT Freedman.

uh…..

FrankOne wrote:

First, it’s John Brennan. Second, are you referring to his speech before the Council on Foreign Relations? This speech was not TO the CIA, but Brennan was the DIRECTOR of the CIA when he delivered it. So many incorrect facts.

Dude you are so brainwashed, there’s no point.

I do concede you are correct I mentioned safety. Maybe one day in the future you’ll realize the only valid point you made was just to keep silent and quote what I had said.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Sandals wrote:

FrankOne wrote:

Here is what you stated:

I see. Yes, I did say that. I was mistaken. I was wrong. I stand corrected. You are correct: I was right after all about safety.

FrankOne wrote:

First, it is Milton Friedman, NOT Freedman.

uh…..

My point about misspelling his name was petty, and I apologize for it. Hell, I mis-typed ‘paper’ instead of ‘vapor’ in my last post.

What matters is the CONTENT of his writing. Milton Friedman was a free-trader. What he believed on immigration, may also strike you as a bit odd. I don’t usually post youtube videos, but this is a primary source speech, unedited, by Milton Friedman himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio relating to Mexican immigration across the Rio Grande into the US.

First, there were no limits at Ellis Island to immigration before 1914. You could get on a boat, and get in — unless diseased, insane, an anarchist, feebleminded, etc — with only about 2% rejected for entry over decades. The ‘anarchist’ restriction might sound strange to you, but in that era, over 100 years ago, anarchists bombed people and buildings; one even assassinated President McKinley. In contrast, ‘modern’ anarchists such as David Friedman, are typically non-violent. Though he is more aptly described as an anarcho-capitalist, like Dark Kenshi on here.

Getting back to the link, Friedman believed Mexican immigration into a welfare State such as the US, was ONLY a good thing if it was ILLEGAL, NOT LEGAL (3:12). His reasoning was that as long as they are ILLEGAL, they do not qualify for welfare, social security, or the ‘myriad benefits we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket’.

Friedman’s view on LEGAL immigration, was that it was incompatible with the welfare State, because you would have unlimited recipients of benefits. Remember, once citizens, these immigrants are eligible for all these benefit programs. Now, an attempt has been made to reconcile legal immigration with the welfare State — by LIMITING new immigrants benefits from most programs native-born citizens are eligible for, for 5 years. So I fully agree with Friedman on that. But his view (and mine) is that the proper answer is to ELIMINATE the welfare State. Absent that, I would argue we should have a LIFETIME exemption for new immigrants receiving benefits (other than ones they’d paid into, e.g. if they paid $10,000 into unemployment, let them have $10,000 out).

FrankOne wrote:

First, it’s John Brennan. Second, are you referring to his speech before the Council on Foreign Relations? This speech was not TO the CIA, but Brennan was the DIRECTOR of the CIA when he delivered it. So many incorrect facts.

Dude you are so brainwashed, there’s no point.
I do concede you are correct I mentioned safety. Maybe one day in the future you’ll realize the only valid point you made was just to keep silent and quote what I had said.

But, where within this transcript, does John Brennan ‘admit’ to geoengineering as you indicated he did?

For being ‘brainwashed’, I am actually very much OPPOSED to the massive US intelligence apparatus; it is out of control. The FBI’s budget is $8.7 billion a year. I regard Edward Snowden as a great HERO for revealing information about the massive collection of phone data (metadata; who you called, when, and call duration) under the ‘Patriot Act’ — regrettably, only PART of which, was found to be unconstitutional. But of course, none of the Presidents or Congress — either Republican OR Democrat — has reigned in the intelligence agencies. So what I am saying is, I am no defender of the NSA, CIA, or FBI — but I favor going after them for what are real, documented abuses, such as spying on the citizenry in mass.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Sandals wrote:

FrankOne wrote:

Here is what you stated:

I see. Yes, I did say that. I was mistaken. I was wrong. I stand corrected. You are correct: I was right after all about safety.

FrankOne wrote:

First, it is Milton Friedman, NOT Freedman.

uh…..

My point about misspelling his name was petty, and I apologize for it. Hell, I mis-typed ‘paper’ instead of ‘vapor’ in my last post.

What matters is the CONTENT of his writing. Milton Friedman was a free-trader. What he believed on immigration, may also strike you as a bit odd. I don’t usually post youtube videos, but this is a primary source speech, unedited, by Milton Friedman himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio relating to Mexican immigration across the Rio Grande into the US.

First, there were no limits at Ellis Island to immigration before 1914. You could get on a boat, and get in — unless diseased, insane, an anarchist, feebleminded, etc — with only about 2% rejected for entry over decades. The ‘anarchist’ restriction might sound strange to you, but in that era, over 100 years ago, anarchists bombed people and buildings; one even assassinated President McKinley. In contrast, ‘modern’ anarchists such as David Friedman, are typically non-violent. Though he is more aptly described as an anarcho-capitalist, like Dark Kenshi on here.

Getting back to the link, Friedman believed Mexican immigration into a welfare State such as the US, was ONLY a good thing if it was ILLEGAL, NOT LEGAL (3:12). His reasoning was that as long as they are ILLEGAL, they do not qualify for welfare, social security, or the ‘myriad benefits we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket’.

Friedman’s view on LEGAL immigration, was that it was incompatible with the welfare State, because you would have unlimited recipients of benefits. Remember, once citizens, these immigrants are eligible for all these benefit programs. Now, an attempt has been made to reconcile legal immigration with the welfare State — by LIMITING new immigrants benefits from most programs native-born citizens are eligible for, for 5 years. So I fully agree with Friedman on that. But his view (and mine) is that the proper answer is to ELIMINATE the welfare State. Absent that, I would argue we should have a LIFETIME exemption for new immigrants receiving benefits (other than ones they’d paid into, e.g. if they paid $10,000 into unemployment, let them have $10,000 out).

FrankOne wrote:

First, it’s John Brennan. Second, are you referring to his speech before the Council on Foreign Relations? This speech was not TO the CIA, but Brennan was the DIRECTOR of the CIA when he delivered it. So many incorrect facts.

Dude you are so brainwashed, there’s no point.
I do concede you are correct I mentioned safety. Maybe one day in the future you’ll realize the only valid point you made was just to keep silent and quote what I had said.

But, where within this transcript, does John Brennan ‘admit’ to geoengineering as you indicated he did?

For being ‘brainwashed’, I am actually very much OPPOSED to the massive US intelligence apparatus; it is out of control. The FBI’s budget is $8.7 billion a year. I regard Edward Snowden as a great HERO for revealing information about the massive collection of phone data (metadata; who you called, when, and call duration) under the ‘Patriot Act’ — regrettably, only PART of which, was found to be unconstitutional. But of course, none of the Presidents or Congress — either Republican OR Democrat — has reigned in the intelligence agencies. So what I am saying is, I am no defender of the NSA, CIA, or FBI — but I favor going after them for what are real, documented abuses, such as spying on the citizenry in mass.

[Author]

Posts