Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Wild Hoss]

Yeah...the main problem with Hanni's argument there is that only a fringe of cranks are suggesting "open borders". Literally no one who is even a passably serious political player is suggesting it.

[Hannibal]

Yeah...the main problem with Hanni's argument there is that only a fringe of cranks are suggesting "open borders". Literally no one who is even a passably serious political player is suggesting it.

Open borders is essentially the status quo and both Sanders and Hillary have offered amnesty. Nobody has to suggest it because we already have it. And it's the model the Europe is following now too (see Geezer's remark about emulating Sweden and Norway).

[Da Geezer]

What would Ayn Rand say? I think that she would advise against the Social Engineering that helped create the housing bubble in the first place. But once you decide to engage in that, then everything after it is mitigating the damage.

Remember that the Glass-Steagall act was originally enacted because the banks were the original boogeyman for the Great Depression. I don't think that most reputable economists still feel that way. It was questionable legislation in the first place. But the rationale at the time was very similar to the rhetoric of today (i.e. "the banks duped people into taking loans and spending money").

Well said.

Social Engineering in the Community Redevelopment Act did create the bubble in 2006-9. But so did the government in thinking they could actually do banking. You had a bunch of fools "buying" mortgages from mortgage originators in the name of the government. There were no constraints (loss of money, loss of job) on those making the decisions to buy mortgages. The only condition was that the mortgages had to be to persons who were unqualified to get a mortgage in a free market. My own bank chose to sell their worst mortgages to Fannie and Freddie.

What progressives can't understand is that the market, particularly the market for a totally fungible good such as money, doesn't "feel" anything. In order to achieve their goal of control, progressives institute policies based on "morality" or "justice" or the "common good". The market just digests this and the most risky mortgages end up owned by the government.

Banks are a convenient whipping boy. They always have been, going back to the days when charging interest was considered by Christians to be a sin (usury).

[Wild Hoss]

Hhhhmmm...no, I don't think open borders is the status quo. People aren't risking their lives digging tunnels and hiding in false-bottom trucks because its fun.

[Wild Hoss]

Gawd, this nonsense again.

[Da Geezer]

And could someone please tell me the appeal of uncontrolled immigration? As I've said, I favor unlimited legal immigration where the US takes in immigrants who want to work and produce. What is the great appeal of masses of poor, sick, and shiftless persons?

Political power and control is why amnesty appeals to progressives.

[Wild Hoss]

And could someone please tell me the appeal of uncontrolled immigration? As I've said, I favor unlimited legal immigration where the US takes in immigrants who want to work and produce. What is the great appeal of masses of poor, sick, and shiftless persons?

Political power and control is why amnesty appeals to progressives.

I don't think anybody can...because there is almost literally nobody who supports that idea.

I mean, progressives? You/Hanni are getting more mileage out of the concept than any progressive.

[hack]

Thank you, Hannibal. I appreciate the change in approach. I don't think Glass-Steagall was meant to prevent risky investments and bubbles. This is a free market. What it was meant to do is to prevent the average person from involuntary exposure to them, which they suffered in the great depression. The act forced banks to choose between taking deposits and making high-risk investments, so that the average person could trust that their savings account would not suddenly be gone because someone on the bank's investment side bet it all on something.

Geezer, socialism and capitalism differ by who owns the means of production. That's the difference. I'm not a socialist. I work in developing countries and have seen up close and in real time the folly of government as the primary actor in the economy. I can regale you and Hannibal with tales that confirm your view many times over. There are different versions of capitalism, however, and mine appears to include more protections for taxpayers, less tolerance for corruption and rent-seeking, and an understanding that ultimately people need to be taken care of. Not because of any particular value judgement, but because history shows that without a safety net you do not have enough stability for long-term economic growth. Forget what ought to be -- that's what IS.

Venezuela is certainly socialist folly. It's the world's largest oil reserves, and when you got a guy like Chavez in control of them, who wanted to be a regional strongman, and oil moved north of $100, he had the cash to buy friends. Oil prices collapsed and now it's a crisis. But you'd have to ask yourself whether, like capitalism, there are multiple forms of socialism. Plenty of other governments control their oil sectors and don't behave like this. That doesn't mean that socialism is good, but obviously there are governments that can be somewhat responsible economic stewards of resources. In truth very few, but it happens. (Don't tell the left, but Norway is one of them, thanks to Statoil. THAT is what makes that country rich and well run. Rare example of a cutting-edge state-owned corporation.)

The open-borders thing isn't something I cannot reconcile with reality. We have a humanitarian crisis underway in which boatloads of people are trying to get to Europe but cannot, and yet it is possible to believe that Europe has open borders? If Sweden has open borders, and there are currently an estimated 12m Syrian refugees in this world according to UNHCR, then how is it that Sweden's largest ethnic minority is the Finns, at 5% of an overall population of 10m? This begs a rethink. My own personal opinion is that Canada has the best policy -- accept the smart and hungry ones, with a side of refguees. Canada ultimately gets the cream of the crop AND credit for taking more of the huddled masses than they actually do. Clever. As for Europe, Hannibal, you may be confusing the interior-EU policy with the policy toward the outside world. EU citizens have freedom of movement within the 28-country zone. Non-citizens do not the right to enter it freely. Immigration quotas are the entire story right now.

I recall Hannibal going on a few years ago about the government creating the financial crisis through the CRA. It turns out that program accounted for just 11% of bad loans in the system, so the numbers did not back that thesis.

[Da Geezer]

I don't think anybody can...because there is almost literally nobody who supports that idea.

Well, Hillary and Bernie both support amnesty for those who have come illegally.

Hoss, what is the appeal to you of amnesty? What you will say is that the people are already here, and "what can we do?". I say amnesty will only encourage more folks to come illegally. Why not allow unlimited immigration, but vet potential immigrants to see that they are not coming here just to get "free stuff". No one is against folks who want to enjoy freedom and want to work.

[Wild Hoss]

Maybe we need to get a definition of what "open borders" means to everyone, so we have a basis to build a convo on.

I am taking it to mean unfettered access.

[hack]

Banks are a convenient whipping boy. They always have been, going back to the days when charging interest was considered by Christians to be a sin (usury).

Almost every belief system ever created hates financial engineering, including Ayn Rand's. In Ghengis Jon's Mongolia, your third bankruptcy was punishable by death. Maybe ``convenient whipping boy'' is the wrong way to look at it. Maybe it's with good reason. Who was the former bank CEO who said the banking sector needs the Fed Chairman to take away the punch bowl? Power corrupts. Money is power.

[Wild Hoss]

Well, Hillary and Bernie both support amnesty for those who have come illegally.

Hoss, what is the appeal to you of amnesty to you? What you will say is that the people are already here, and "what can we do?". I say amnesty will only encourage more folks to come illegally. Why not allow unlimited immigration, but vet potential immigrants to see that they are not coming here just to get "free stuff". No one is against folks who want to enjoy freedom and want to work.

I see amnesty much as Dubya did back in the day...an acceptance of reality. Folks are here, we cannot move them out, and frankly, we need them here. So deal with it, grant amnesty for those here working with no criminal record, and clamp down hard on the border. From then on, its no-bullshit, immigration-by-the-law.

I'd go further than some, and put every one of them in a temporary citizenship state whereas the can work but are not eligible for SSA and other benefits, nor minimum wage protections, until they went through the naturalization process. And carry that policy forward with new immigrants, to prevent labor shock on the economy.

Just my quick thoughts.

[Hannibal]

The open-borders thing isn't something I cannot reconcile with reality. We have a humanitarian crisis underway in which boatloads of people are trying to get to Europe but cannot...

I think that is a relatively new development, a result of the massive nationalist backlash that has formed in almost every European country over the past few years. But make no mistake, many of the people in charge over there (e.g. Merkel) desperately want to resettle as many refugees as possible in the country to turn them into voting citizens. Lots of major cities like Paris, Brussels, Stockholm, and Cologne are in the process of turning into hellholes, if they aren't already. i don't know the details about Britain's immigration policies, but they have enough of it for Muhammad to now be the most popular baby boy's name in London, and they just elected a Muslim mayor there. I was in London 10 years ago and I think that half the women that I saw on the streets were wearing hijabs. The native populations of Western Republics are being rapidly replaced, against their wishes, and being smugly told that this is the new way, so you might as well get used to it, bigot.

[Hannibal]

I see amnesty much as Dubya did back in the day...an acceptance of reality. Folks are here, we cannot move them out, and frankly, we need them here. So deal with it, grant amnesty for those here working with no criminal record, and clamp down hard on the border. From then on, its no-bullshit, immigration-by-the-law.

That's what Simpson-Mazzoli (1986) was supposed to be. "Okay you guys who are here now can stay, but this is it -- last time". Forgive me if I don't trust Washington politicians' pinky swear to enforce our immigration laws when they promised they were going to do it last time and they haven't done it for 15 years.

If we do another round of amnesty, it's permanent one party rule in the country. Take any state where a Republican hasn't won by double digits in the past 20 years (e.g. Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, etc) and it's permanent Democrat. Florida especially. It will be another California.

[froot loops]

Just to reiterate because maybe Hannibal missed my post. Goldman Sachs was one of the villains of that financial c4ash.

Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is far from open borders. Any of those proposals had a lot of hoops to go through. Plus illegal immigration peaked in 2007. The nu.ber has been pretty static sin W's presidency.