Caps on economic migrants

[tbaldwin]

Whose fault is it that the extra money isn't used to train more doctors?

People who support the free market as a solution to peoples problems.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Facts....Oh dear......
Your interpretation is open to question.....Look at how Migration effects countries,look closer to home to Ireland centuries of migrants sent money home....And look at what effect that had?

OK, facts. In the early sixties, Spanish men were actively encouraged to take jobs abroad on fixed-length contracts as there was no work for them to do at home. They DID send vast amounts of money home, and since there were no jobs for them in Spain at the time, this was EXTRA money that otherwise would not have entered the economy. It was a policy that was consciously worked out and coordinated, and double-digit economic expansion resulted. Sending people to work abroad is effectively the same as selling exports. The obvious difference between this and Ireland is that the men then came back to take the extra jobs that the economic expansion had produced for them in Spain.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People who support the free market as a solution to peoples problems.

I detest the free market. But if you wish to argue against it, you first have to understand how it works.

You are also forgetting the immense pride many people have in being able to help their families back home.

What you appear to be suggesting is some form of totalitarianism where people are told where they are to work and what they are to work as.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well id guess Michael Howard would agree with you on that..It seems to fit in quite neatly with supporting trickle down economics and the free market.....

I don't believe in trickle down (although unlike you I know what it actually is) or the free market, whereas you are the person who says he believes in a "regulated free market", oxymoronic though it is.

As for Michael Howard's opinion, I wouldn't have a clue, as I don't share any of his politics, only the religion he was born into. You, on the other hand...

But talking of facts as i know you like to do...Maybe you helped spin them in the home office? Can you back up your wildly hopeless claim that if "you suddenly cease importing professional labour you're likely to cause far more economic and social problems in the homelands of the labourers than you'd solve here"

What's "wildly hopeless" about the fact that if a nation-state's financial reserves consist largely of remittances, that removing those remittances will cause social and economic problems?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Really? Good old Franco eh....Nothing to do with Tourism then?

Different time-frame, balders. Migration of labour and tourism happened at least a decade apart.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Check your facts before saying stupid things like that. 6 million Spanish men went abroad to work in, for instance Switzerland, and they sent back a lot of money. Of course tourism helped, but that did not take off until the seventies, when the economic explosion was already under way. All of this is true, whatever you think of Franco.

Ah, I see you've already mentioned that labour migration and tourism were two temporally separated phenomena.

Not that balders will pay any attention, becuase he's always right, even when he's totally wrong.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Facts....Oh dear......
Your interpretation is open to question.....Look at how Migration effects countries,look closer to home to Ireland centuries of migrants sent money home....And look at what effect that had?

If you're talking about the RoI then you can only use the last 85-90 yrs as an example comparable to modern developing nations, because prior to that Ireland was a colony. So "centuries" means precisely nothing.

In other words balders, you chose a pretty crappy exampl. Especially as remittances have played an acknowledged role in the RoI's economic and social development.

 

[ViolentPanda]

People who support the free market as a solution to peoples problems.

There's none so blind as a dogmatic "authoritarian socialist", is there?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I detest the free market. But if you wish to argue against it, you first have to understand how it works.

You are also forgetting the immense pride many people have in being able to help their families back home.

What you appear to be suggesting is some form of totalitarianism where people are told where they are to work and what they are to work as.

He's a soi-disant "authoritarian socialist" who (in a contradiction to his self-awarded description) "doesn't believe in top-down government".

Given that, it's highly likely he doesn't quite know what the fuck he's on about, except that he'll be in favour of movement restriction, bt in a caring, sharing way.

 

[durruti02]

Where did I say that?

Ah, silly me. I didn't. You're hallucinating again.=QOUTE]


oh hear we go again .. so what does this ( below ) mean then


VP .. " because what you propose means that some people who don't have the fallback position of a social welfare safety net (threadbare though it is) lose one of the few options they have of being able to feed and cloth their families, which is to sell their skills on the market."

to me it can mean nothing but that is is WRONG to deny immigrants jobs as they do not have a fallback ..

 

[durruti02]

So you validate your stance by reference to a 150 year-old analysis? Good for you.
Got anything slightly more up-to-date that takes account of the last 150 yrs of technological advance, and the globalisation of capital?

.

er .. you are very forgetfull .. i was replying to what YOU said

VP.."I suspect that Marx believed that change was meant to be for the better, rather than change for change's sake."

i therefore entirely logically mentionned what he had said .. it is as you rightly say not entirely relevant .. like much of what he said though about processes .. it is still very relevant ..

 

[durruti02]

And why does it?
Because "the left" for the most part walked away from the working classes in the 1980s.
Because what remained of the left was more interested in power struggles than engaging with the grass roots.

hey hey we agree!
What IS vital is for people to defend themselves at a community level. What that means isn't your "year zero" of immigration control, it's whatever the community decides is best for the community.

OK so you would support a community deciding that houses and jobs should ONLY be for local people unless deemed neccessary ??? .. that is what i say .. that is what most people i know think and, i hazard i guess, what most people in the country think ..

What isn't vital is you[ defending them for your own reasons that might have fuck-all to do with their community.

don't get this bit

.

........

 

[durruti02]

The problem I have with your witterings is you're in favour of a "jam tomorrow" political scenario. The flip-side of such things is that "jam tomorrow" usually means "shit today", and it's very rare you ever get the jam in any case. It's all promises that good old fashioned populists would find themselves loathe to fulfil once they've tasted a bit of power.

i appreciate that this seems like jam tomorrow. but give me a strategy that gives us jam today and i will take it .. in my experiance there is NO, jam today, strategy ..

it is ironic you accuse me of witterring .. in fact it is the left/@s who are the witterers .. how many of the left and @s are actually active in a non parasitic fashion in w/c communities?? a tiny % .. they are either academics or parasites

i again if you actually read my posts am not promisisnmg anything .. let alone jam ..

all i argue for is that a strategy that works from the absolute base is the only one that can create the decisive change that i belive that we as humans ( and the planet) need

in the here and now that means talking to your neighbour .. positively this means creating local community groups it means being active in your Trade union fighting for those around you ..

negatively it means confronting parasitism .. that is the form the left take .. and the sneaky liberal bullshit that says that certain groups are opressed and others are not .. capitalism may divide and rule but we are all its victims .. we will deafeta it not by appealing to minorities but by working with the majority

 

[ViolentPanda]

to me it can mean nothing but that is is WRONG to deny immigrants jobs as they do not have a fallback ..

If it can mean nothing but what you claim it means then you either have a very tenuous grip on basic English, difficulty with thinking or you have an agenda.

 

[tbaldwin]

I detest the free market. But if you wish to argue against it, you first have to understand how it works.

You are also forgetting the immense pride many people have in being able to help their families back home.

What you appear to be suggesting is some form of totalitarianism where people are told where they are to work and what they are to work as.

1 Do you mean i have to accept your view of how it works?

2 Am i?

3 Yes..I believe in state planning and regulation cos im a Socialist. Others believe in the free market cos there anti socialist.

 

[tbaldwin]

In other words balders, you chose a pretty crappy exampl. Especially as remittances have played an acknowledged role in the RoI's economic and social development.

More of your sad example of a person who likes to try and fit dubious "stats" and "facts" to try and fit to a piss poor arguement.

acknowledged by who eh???? and how much of a role?
And how come that Irelands economy stagnated for years before eu funds despite huge levels of migration?
So the "crappy example" doesnt seem quite so crappy to me.
But knowing you you will try and find some way to interpret some more of your bumper home office facts to spin....

 

[ViolentPanda]

i appreciate that this seems like jam tomorrow. but give me a strategy that gives us jam today and i will take it .. in my experiance there is NO, jam today, strategy ..

It doesn't seem like "jam tomorrow", it IS.
As for "jam today", why not admit that actually there's no jam, just the promise of it, perpetually "just around the corner".

it is ironic you accuse me of witterring .. in fact it is the left/@s who are the witterers ..

There was me thinking that you claimed to be of the left.

So you're actually admitting you witter, then?

how many of the left and @s are actually active in a non parasitic fashion in w/c communities?? a tiny % .. they are either academics or parasites

I'm presuming this is based on your personal experience rather than any type of actual survey of anywhere beyond your own locality?

i again if you actually read my posts am not promisisnmg anything .. let alone jam ..

It's what's lnown as a metaphor, dearie.

all i argue for is that a strategy that works from the absolute base is the only one that can create the decisive change that i belive that we as humans ( and the planet) need

in the here and now that means talking to your neighbour .. positively this means creating local community groups it means being active in your Trade union fighting for those around you ..

negatively it means confronting parasitism .. that is the form the left take .. and the sneaky liberal bullshit that says that certain groups are opressed and others are not .. capitalism may divide and rule but we are all its victims .. we will deafeta it not by appealing to minorities but by working with the majority

What really fucks me off is you talk some sense, but you shit all over yourself with your constant need to attack others.
Yes, pointing up certain oppressed groups over others is shit. yes, going for the minority vote as a route to power sucks the Devil's dick.
So fucking what? Why fucking waste your time and energy picking the scabs off old woulds ad infinitum? Far better to ignore "Respect", the Swappies and other pseudo-lefties.

But no, you'd rather stick your thumb up your arse and carry on ranting about "liberals" and anyone else who doesn't agree with your narrow stream of socialist dogma.

My fucking G-d. No wonder people look at the british left and laugh.

 

[tbaldwin]

What really ##### me off is you talk some sense, but you #### all over yourself with your constant need to attack others.
:

This from the same bloke who called Giles pompous......If you actually considered what durrutti had to say rather than trying to pretend hes dogmatic....You would see hes questioning orthodox left views cos hes seen they dont work.

 

[ViolentPanda]

More of your sad example of a person who likes to try and fit dubious "stats" and "facts" to try and fit to a piss poor arguement.

acknowledged by who eh???? and how much of a role?

Avail yourself of google, pinhead. You might learn something.

And how come that Irelands economy stagnated for years before eu funds despite huge levels of migration?

You're not very good at this, are you?
Economic stagnation (i.e. flat growth) doesn't imply zero economic or social development.

So the "crappy example" doesnt seem quite so crappy to me.

Your examples always seem good to you. Pity they never hold much appeal for anyone else.
Still, that's because you're always right, isn't it? Even whaen you're full of shit and totally wrong.

But knowing you you will try and find some way to interpret some more of your bumper home office facts to spin....

Blah blah blah "home office", blah blah blah "Michael Howard", blah blah blah "Ann Widdecombe".

You're a broken record, balders. A one-trick pony that should be sent to the knacker's yard to be turned into economy-brand dog food.

 

[tbaldwin]

You really have nothing to say VP? You just try and play with words but what is your point?
You still think Irelands a crappy example do you? And you would like more poor countries to have leaders like FRANCO would you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

This from the same bloke who called Giles pompous......If you actually considered what durrutti had to say rather than trying to pretend hes dogmatic....You would see hes questioning orthodox left views cos hes seen they dont work.

Who's pretending?

Oooh, and he's "questioning orthodox left views" (whatever they are). And that makes him (and you, I suppose?) non-dogmatic?

Nope, it means you've exchanged one set of dogma for another.

Just have a little think and a little read. Think about how you (and he) lay out the same position over and over again.

Then try to tell me he (and you) aren't dogmatic. Because if you do try to claim that, every person reading this thread will know you're lying.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You really have nothing to say VP? You just try and play with words but what is your point?

You really can't bear to be contradicted, can you?

You still think Irelands a crappy example do you?

Yep.
Prove me wrong.

And you would like more poor countries to have leaders like FRANCO would you?

Ah, there we go, the patented tbaldwin aspersion-casting. You've got no argument so you go for the shit-smearing instead.

Where have I said anything about Franco? That was another poster.

Oh, and by the way, mentioning someone doesn't mean you support them, Einstein.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You really have nothing to say VP? You just try and play with words but what is your point?
You still think Irelands a crappy example do you? And you would like more poor countries to have leaders like FRANCO would you?

FFS, who's defending Franco? He was a complete and utter murderous cunt, who in the forties and fifties ruined Spain's economy. But that doesn't mean that you should not look at what he (well, Opus Dei in fact) did in the sixties, and how it worked. That is simply sensible. Corrective laser eye surgery was pioneered in the old Soviet Union. Does that mean that if you disliked the Soviet Union you should not have corrective laser eye surgery?

You do your argument no favours by putting words into other people's mouths like that.

 

[durruti02]

If it can mean nothing but what you claim it means then you either have a very tenuous grip on basic English, difficulty with thinking or you have an agenda.

so what did it mean

 

[durruti02]

It doesn't seem like "jam tomorrow", it IS.
As for "jam today", why not admit that actually there's no jam, just the promise of it, perpetually "just around the corner".

you also fail to understand ( or fail to try to understand my main points) e.g. i am NOT offerring any jam or anything .. i am suggestting that certain strategys have failed and that we have NOT really tried the one strategy that offers the most


There was me thinking that you claimed to be of the left.

not the typical left

So you're actually admitting you witter, then?

er no .. please re read .. i was saying it is the left /' who witter .. i am active .. i maybe argue too long on here but it is hardly wittering

I'm presuming this is based on your personal experience rather than any type of actual survey of anywhere beyond your own locality?

over 25 years of experiance .. sold my first SW in 1977 ... and it matches just about everyone i have ever spoke to on the subject

What really fucks me off is you talk some sense, but you shit all over yourself with your constant need to attack others.

why thank you very much and my what a lovely turn of phrase mate ..

Yes, pointing up certain oppressed groups over others is shit. yes, going for the minority vote as a route to power sucks the Devil's dick.
So fucking what? Why fucking waste your time and energy picking the scabs off old woulds ad infinitum? Far better to ignore "Respect", the Swappies and other pseudo-lefties.

er .. have a look around .. this is a website where people debate and argue

But no, you'd rather stick your thumb up your arse and carry on ranting about "liberals" and anyone else who doesn't agree with your narrow stream of socialist dogma.



No wonder people look at the british left and laugh.

though interestingly the political activity i am involved in ( which talies with a lot of what i say on here) is NOT laughed at ..

yet again you end up collapsing into swearing and abuse .. as well as ignoring all my rebuttals of where i disagree with you .. you see an attck on liberalism as akin to you saying ' thumb up yer arse/ shitting all over yourself' ??

 

[ViolentPanda]

so what did it mean

Why don't we have a look?

I said " " because what you propose means that some people who don't have the fallback position of a social welfare safety net (threadbare though it is) lose one of the few options they have of being able to feed and cloth their families, which is to sell their skills on the market."

You said
"to me it can mean nothing but that is is WRONG to deny immigrants jobs as they do not have a fallback"

Now, if you had the sense of a slightly brain-damaged baboon you'd realise I'm not saying it is wrong, but that it is sad that what you propose will cause people with few options to lose one of them.

You see, when I write something I generally mean what I say and am just about articulate enough to do so, so if I'd wanted to say that it's wrong to deny immigrants jobs, that's what I'd have said.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yet again you end up collapsing into swearing and abuse .. as well as ignoring all my rebuttals of where i disagree with you .. you see an attck on liberalism as akin to you saying ' thumb up yer arse/ shitting all over yourself' ??

A couple of things; trigger.

I swear for emphasis. Sometimes it's the only way to get you to pay attention to what's on the screen rather than what you interpret what's on the screen to mean.

I haven't ignored your rebuttals (by the way, a sweepingly general statement like "I don't witter, it's the left and anarchists wot witter" isn't a rebuttal). I've answered those worth answering.

Do everyone a favour, read the FAQs and learn how to format your replies properly.

Thanks awfully.

 

[tbaldwin]

Where have I said anything about Franco? That was another poster.

.

Remember your lines about Moseley and Chesterton...To slur my views on getting rid of an unelected judiciary.....

 

[tbaldwin]

Who's pretending?

Oooh, and he's "questioning orthodox left views" (whatever they are). And that makes him (and you, I suppose?) non-dogmatic?

Nope, it means you've exchanged one set of dogma for another.

Just have a little think and a little read. Think about how you (and he) lay out the same position over and over again.

Then try to tell me he (and you) aren't dogmatic. Because if you do try to claim that, every person reading this thread will know you're lying.

Unlike you Durrutti has been involved in Left wing politics and come to understand the limitations of the Orthodox left....While you were busy helping Anne Widdecombe and Michael Howard at the Home office some people were politically active in left groups. And whilst they still want to change the world they dont think the orthodox left and small groups of dogmatists are the way to do it....
You really dont get it....Perhaps if you could google it...that would help.....

 

[tbaldwin]

FFS, who's defending Franco? He was a complete and utter murderous cunt, who in the forties and fifties ruined Spain's economy. But that doesn't mean that you should not look at what he (well, Opus Dei in fact) did in the sixties, and how it worked. That is simply sensible. Corrective laser eye surgery was pioneered in the old Soviet Union. Does that mean that if you disliked the Soviet Union you should not have corrective laser eye surgery?

You do your argument no favours by putting words into other people's mouths like that.

Your interpretation of what happened in Spain is interesting but thats all it is an interesting interpretation.
Migrant workers sending money home does not have a very good record in helping rather than hindering countries...Look at Ireland...It wasnt until it got EU money that things got better...