History is a series of conquerings....
Isn't that really the world in a nutshell?
People in Arizona are afraid of being "conquered" by Mexicans crossing the border. And it's not necessarily a military "invasion", but they're probably scared of their way of life being overtaken. Probably unfounded, so although I'm anti-the immigration bill they got going there, I can at least sense some sort of big-picture reason as to why they enacted it.
Anyway, here's another simplification of the world: Someone once said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend. I like that....but it's equally arguable that the problem with capitalism is eventually someone ends up with ALL the money. Like the cards in a game of War. Actually, the biggest issue is that nobody in America wants to be on the bottom. Well, SOMEBODY'S got to be on the bottom. That's why jobs are shipped overseas, because THEY will gladly take being on the bottom, apparently.
Oh well, I'm no economist.
6 comments:
Brian:
I confess, I've not seen that tart assessment of socialism. I'm familiar with the quip that the problem with capitalism is capitalists, whilst the problem with socialism is socialism.
Kidding aside, one problem with socialism is, in economics, an almost axiomatic idea that there will be infinite demand for a good that has no cost; or, at least no apparent cost. It's in line with your comment. The US is, of course, a quasi-socialist country (a point it's really foolish to argue if you think about it for 10 seconds); couple that with the fact that now close to half of our people pay no income tax, or indeed, through EITC or the like, actually collect money through income taxes.
In economics, there is a famous problem of distributed costs and concentrated benefits that goes hand in glove with this. If the cost of a certain programme is distributed across millions (or tens of millions) of people, the pain becomes somewhat imperceptible. The benefits of certain spending programmes (take unemployment, for example) are concentrated into the hands of a relatively limited few. Hence, the demand to KEEP the spending will always be louder than the demand to do away with the taxes required to fund it.
Which is fine, of course. But what if this principle is then multiplied across thousands of "necessary" government programmes? As the old saying goes, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.
President Obama has submitted a budget that is more than a trillion dollars in the red. I am sure that each dollar spent has someone who will claim that the spending is "necessary."
To your point about Arizona, I think that you've somewhat mischaracterised the issue. I don't live in Arizona, and never have. But I did live for nearly 20 years total in California. There, it's not so much that people feel like they are being "conquered," which implies the taking by force (either physical, cultural, or by sheer numbers). No. The problem here is that the putative "conquerors" are in fact being brought in by powerful, INTERNAL special interests groups (big business, big labour, the Democratic party) to further various ends. In many cases, local officials not only are shirking their sworn duty to uphold the laws and thus are shirking their responsibilities, they are ACTIVELY encouraging the invasion.
As I see it, the main thrust of the Arizona laws is to prevent local police and politicos from abetting the invasion through sanctuary city laws, walls put up between local law enforcement and ICE, and other duplicitous means. If you read the law, it does not seem to imply that there are any actual, new proscriptions about illegal immigration. It merely says that the local police MUST enforce these laws, and to hide behind, e.g. "sanctuary" laws is in itself a crime.
sjrefugee.blogspot.com
Brian:
I confess, I've not seen that tart assessment of socialism. I'm familiar with the quip that the problem with capitalism is capitalists, whilst the problem with socialism is socialism.
Kidding aside, one problem with socialism is, in economics, an almost axiomatic idea that there will be infinite demand for a good that has no cost; or, at least no apparent cost. It's in line with your comment. The US is, of course, a quasi-socialist country (a point it's really foolish to argue if you think about it for 10 seconds); couple that with the fact that now close to half of our people pay no income tax, or indeed, through EITC or the like, actually collect money through income taxes.
In economics, there is a famous problem of distributed costs and concentrated benefits that goes hand in glove with this. If the cost of a certain programme is distributed across millions (or tens of millions) of people, the pain becomes somewhat imperceptible. The benefits of certain spending programmes (take unemployment, for example) are concentrated into the hands of a relatively limited few. Hence, the demand to KEEP the spending will always be louder than the demand to do away with the taxes required to fund it.
Which is fine, of course. But what if this principle is then multiplied across thousands of "necessary" government programmes? As the old saying goes, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.
President Obama has submitted a budget that is more than a trillion dollars in the red. I am sure that each dollar spent has someone who will claim that the spending is "necessary."
To your point about Arizona, I think that you've somewhat mischaracterised the issue. I don't live in Arizona, and never have. But I did live for nearly 20 years total in California. There, it's not so much that people feel like they are being "conquered," which implies the taking by force (either physical, cultural, or by sheer numbers). No. The problem here is that the putative "conquerors" are in fact being brought in by powerful, INTERNAL special interests groups (big business, big labour, the Democratic party) to further various ends. In many cases, local officials not only are shirking their sworn duty to uphold the laws and thus are shirking their responsibilities, they are ACTIVELY encouraging the invasion.
As I see it, the main thrust of the Arizona laws is to prevent local police and politicos from abetting the invasion through sanctuary city laws, walls put up between local law enforcement and ICE, and other duplicitous means. If you read the law, it does not seem to imply that there are any actual, new proscriptions about illegal immigration. It merely says that the local police MUST enforce these laws, and to hide behind, e.g. "sanctuary" laws is in itself a crime.
www.sjrefugee.blogspot.com
Brian:
I confess, I've not seen that tart assessment of socialism. I'm familiar with the quip that the problem with capitalism is capitalists, whilst the problem with socialism is socialism.
Kidding aside, one problem with socialism is, in economics, an almost axiomatic idea that there will be infinite demand for a good that has no cost; or, at least no apparent cost. It's in line with your comment. The US is, of course, a quasi-socialist country (a point it's really foolish to argue if you think about it for 10 seconds); couple that with the fact that now close to half of our people pay no income tax, or indeed, through EITC or the like, actually collect money through income taxes.
In economics, there is a famous problem of distributed costs and concentrated benefits that goes hand in glove with this. If the cost of a certain programme is distributed across millions (or tens of millions) of people, the pain becomes somewhat imperceptible. The benefits of certain spending programmes (take unemployment, for example) are concentrated into the hands of a relatively limited few. Hence, the demand to KEEP the spending will always be louder than the demand to do away with the taxes required to fund it.
Which is fine, of course. But what if this principle is then multiplied across thousands of "necessary" government programmes? As the old saying goes, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.
President Obama has submitted a budget that is more than a trillion dollars in the red. I am sure that each dollar spent has someone who will claim that the spending is "necessary."
To your point about Arizona, I think that you've somewhat mischaracterised the issue. I don't live in Arizona, and never have. But I did live for nearly 20 years total in California. There, it's not so much that people feel like they are being "conquered," which implies the taking by force (either physical, cultural, or by sheer numbers). No. The problem here is that the putative "conquerors" are in fact being brought in by powerful, INTERNAL special interests groups (big business, big labour, the Democratic party) to further various ends. In many cases, local officials not only are shirking their sworn duty to uphold the laws and thus are shirking their responsibilities, they are ACTIVELY encouraging the invasion.
As I see it, the main thrust of the Arizona laws is to prevent local police and politicos from abetting the invasion through sanctuary city laws, walls put up between local law enforcement and ICE, and other duplicitous means. If you read the law, it does not seem to imply that there are any actual, new proscriptions about illegal immigration. It merely says that the local police MUST enforce these laws, and to hide behind, e.g. "sanctuary" laws is in itself a crime.
I confess, I've not seen that tart assessment of socialism. I'm familiar with the quip that the problem with capitalism is capitalists, whilst the problem with socialism is socialism.
Kidding aside, one problem with socialism is, in economics, an almost axiomatic idea that there will be infinite demand for a good that has no cost; or, at least no apparent cost. It's in line with your comment. The US is, of course, a quasi-socialist country (a point it's really foolish to argue if you think about it for 10 seconds); couple that with the fact that now close to half of our people pay no income tax, or indeed, through EITC or the like, actually collect money through income taxes.
In economics, there is a famous problem of distributed costs and concentrated benefits that goes hand in glove with this. If the cost of a certain programme is distributed across millions (or tens of millions) of people, the pain becomes somewhat imperceptible. The benefits of certain spending programmes (take unemployment, for example) are concentrated into the hands of a relatively limited few. Hence, the demand to KEEP the spending will always be louder than the demand to do away with the taxes required to fund it.
Which is fine, of course. But what if this principle is then multiplied across thousands of "necessary" government programmes? As the old saying goes, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.
President Obama has submitted a budget that is more than a trillion dollars in the red. I am sure that each dollar spent has someone who will claim that the spending is "necessary."
To your point about Arizona, I think that you've somewhat mischaracterised the issue. I don't live in Arizona, and never have. But I did live for nearly 20 years total in California. There, it's not so much that people feel like they are being "conquered," which implies the taking by force (either physical, cultural, or by sheer numbers). No. The problem here is that the putative "conquerors" are in fact being brought in by powerful, INTERNAL special interests groups (big business, big labour, the Democratic party) to further various ends. In many cases, local officials not only are shirking their sworn duty to uphold the laws and thus are shirking their responsibilities, they are ACTIVELY encouraging the invasion.
As I see it, the main thrust of the Arizona laws is to prevent local police and politicos from abetting the invasion through sanctuary city laws, walls put up between local law enforcement and ICE, and other duplicitous means. If you read the law, it does not seem to imply that there are any actual, new proscriptions about illegal immigration. It merely says that the local police MUST enforce these laws, and to hide behind, e.g. "sanctuary" laws is in itself a crime.
Brian:
I confess, I've not seen that tart assessment of socialism. I'm familiar with the quip that the problem with capitalism is capitalists, whilst the problem with socialism is socialism.
Kidding aside, one problem with socialism is, in economics, an almost axiomatic idea that there will be infinite demand for a good that has no cost; or, at least no apparent cost. It's in line with your comment. The US is, of course, a quasi-socialist country (a point it's really foolish to argue if you think about it for 10 seconds); couple that with the fact that now close to half of our people pay no income tax, or indeed, through EITC or the like, actually collect money through income taxes.
In economics, there is a famous problem of distributed costs and concentrated benefits that goes hand in glove with this. If the cost of a certain programme is distributed across millions (or tens of millions) of people, the pain becomes somewhat imperceptible. The benefits of certain spending programmes (take unemployment, for example) are concentrated into the hands of a relatively limited few. Hence, the demand to KEEP the spending will always be louder than the demand to do away with the taxes required to fund it.
Which is fine, of course. But what if this principle is then multiplied across thousands of "necessary" government programmes? As the old saying goes, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.
President Obama has submitted a budget that is more than a trillion dollars in the red. I am sure that each dollar spent has someone who will claim that the spending is "necessary."
To your point about Arizona, I think that you've somewhat mischaracterised the issue. I don't live in Arizona, and never have. But I did live for nearly 20 years total in California. There, it's not so much that people feel like they are being "conquered," which implies the taking by force (either physical, cultural, or by sheer numbers). No. The problem here is that the putative "conquerors" are in fact being brought in by powerful, INTERNAL special interests groups (big business, big labour, the Democratic party) to further various ends. In many cases, local officials not only are shirking their sworn duty to uphold the laws and thus are shirking their responsibilities, they are ACTIVELY encouraging the invasion.
As I see it, the main thrust of the Arizona laws is to prevent local police and politicos from abetting the invasion through sanctuary city laws, walls put up between local law enforcement and ICE, and other duplicitous means. If you read the law, it does not seem to imply that there are any actual, new proscriptions about illegal immigration. It merely says that the local police MUST enforce these laws, and to hide behind, e.g. "sanctuary" laws is in itself a crime.
sjrefugee.blogspot.com
Post a Comment