Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[Cormac]

Eriku, you haven't seen anything yet. If you think Norway can get away with high immigration, you may be right. But it's not looking good at the moment.
Norway isn't typical, because I believe the country is oil rich at the moment.
But just wait till things get a bit less rosy, that's when the trouble really starts.

You say that Norwegians have somehow chosen this by their votes.
I'm saying it's not true, they haven't had a proper choice. If they had chosen to have lots of immigrants, I wouldn't have posted, would I?

I can't believe that you can blythely ignore the lessons of Northern Ireland, or Kosovo, and just pretend that people will happily blend together.

And my question is, who does immigration actually benefit?

In Northern Ireland, the people DID come together, in the United Irishmen revolution, where "Protestants, Catholics, and Dissenters" came together to throw off the occupying colonial yoke. It was a deliberate political decision that split the people, and it was 200 years of the continued application of this policy that has created the current culture in Northern Ireland.

If the politicians can keep a lid on the violent few, over time, the communities in Northern Ireland will again coalesce, and decide again as a single group what their future should be.

[MrJonno]

All nations are formed by some variety of genocide through this can include assimilation, ones that currently have problems are ones didnt complete the process.

The idea of different cultures living under the same local rulership (as opposed to some empire) is a modern invention (and a very good one)

[Cormac]

Without immigration, this country would have a far lower population than it has, and it would be still falling.

And a higher proportion of people living on old age pension; paid for by whom?

Do you think the young should be paying my pension? They should be paying in for their own pensions, not paying for the previous generation's.
If house prices were not so crazy, people would have more savings when they got older.

In Britain, people end up with a house worth a lot of money, but not much in savings. So you have the dilemma of selling your home, or not being able to touch your nest-egg.

The method of paying for pensions was decided upon LONG before immigration became a problem.

Most countries have this approach to pensions. It is short-sighted, and represents a massive economic timebomb for those countries with a greying demographic.

It should be noted that if we want to position society to try to stabilise or even reduce populations (for reasons of conservation etc), then this issue of funding pensions is a key problem to be resolved.

The resolution is either that the state finds a great trove of natural resources, and pumps the revenue into a sovereign pension fund, or all workers will have to pay extra money into a new sovereign pension fund which has to be utterly separate and independent of the central tax pool.

But, the problem has nothing to do with immigration.

[Cormac]

Yup, socialists demand high wages and universal employment, but they do it without realizing (or caring) that this results directly in higher prices for goods, which reduces the value of the wages just as much as they were increased, if not more. It's called "inflation" by the way. Too much money (in the hands of workers as a result of excessive wages) chasing too few goods (caused by high costs of production that are the result of high labor costs).

It's a giant ponzi scheme and socialists as a class are simply too stupid, and to wound up in their egalitarian ideology to recognize hard economic facts. Supply and demand are going to bite the EU in the ass every time.

Capitalism is a 'giant Ponzi scheme based on everlasting economic growth, which is impossible.

No, it's just cyclical, which every good capitalist knows full well, and plans for.

Strictly speaking, there is no guarantee that it is cyclical. A bit like the lottery, it is a new set of probabilities at every point, and there is no certainty that things will ever come back around to how they were.

(See Nassim Nicholas Taleb - "Fooled by Randomness" and "Black Swan".

[Cormac]

Yup, socialists demand high wages and universal employment, but they do it without realizing (or caring) that this results directly in higher prices for goods, which reduces the value of the wages just as much as they were increased, if not more. It's called "inflation" by the way. Too much money (in the hands of workers as a result of excessive wages) chasing too few goods (caused by high costs of production that are the result of high labor costs).

It's a giant ponzi scheme and socialists as a class are simply too stupid, and to wound up in their egalitarian ideology to recognize hard economic facts. Supply and demand are going to bite the EU in the ass every time.

Capitalism is a 'giant Ponzi scheme based on everlasting economic growth, which is impossible.

No, it's just cyclical, which every good capitalist knows full well, and plans for.

I don;t know of a better system of economics, or politics, but it isn't the socialists that fucked up the western economies this time, by trading default swaps on shit mortgages, which led to ever more recless lending to keep the Ponzi scheme rolling.

Actually, it was. It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who are as close to avowed socialists as it gets, who fucked up our economy by engaging in socialist redistributionist schemes under the Community Reinvestment Act. The mortgage market merely tried to cover it's collective ass with credit default swaps, and the FTC didn't catch on to the fact that the scheme was actually an insurance plan that, by law, was supposed to be fully funded, but wasn't.

But it was the "socialists" (progressives actually) in Congress who insisted that banks (on pain of dissolution through banking investigator harassment) lend money to people who had no business borrowing it in the first place. Absent the Frank and Dodd show and Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, banks NEVER would have made loans to unemployed or marginally employed people, and they would have remained what they always should have been: Renters.

While this scheme may have played a part, and even concentrated the collapse, the concept of sub-prime mortgages and of collatoralisation (or securitisation as it is known in Europe) were the invention of the Capital markets.

In fact, there is no particular problem with securitised products or with sub-prime mortgages. The real problem was that every step of the chain was incorrectly rewarded and motivated:

1. Rating agencies (because if they didn't give a good rating to securitised sub-prime mortgage books, they'd undermine their own credibility, as they'd given top ratings to the mortgage banks when they borrowed their capital to lend)
2. Mortgage banks incentivised their executives by connected bonuses to short term profits and volume
3. Mortgage banks incentivised their salesmen and broker networks by connecting commission to volume only.

This led to the widespread fraudulent mortgage applications that we've all heard of, in which brokers submitted falsified documents to secure mortages for people who couldn't actually afford them.

Banks overlooked this, because they knew they'd package up these dodgy mortgages and sell them off very quickly - leaving someone else stuck with a useless investment, and leaving the banks with bare profit - and executives with massive bonuses.

It effectively disconnected the banks from the (last remaining) consequences of highly risky lending. This is a very very bad thing.

The rating agencies would be able to point out the profitability of the bank as evidence that their rating was valid.

Rotten to the core, and absolutely against every business ethic going. This is not an argument in favour of socialism, it is an argument in favour of the harsh application of laws against fraud and in favour of good and prudent corporate governance.

[Cormac]

Don't get me wrong, I'm against large-scale immigration, not social or socialist policies.

I'm really complaining that the politicians in the centre or centre left parties seem to see it as their duty to enable immigration, in spite of the fact that the people don't want it. In Britain you would have to vote for a loony right-wing party, if you wanted to vote to stop immigration.

I would like to see a party that was centre left, but was determined to keep immigration to the minimum.
Immigration's got nothing do do with socialism as far as I'm concerned.

We should just pick and choose the rich, qualified, talented immigrants, of any colour or religion, and tell the rest to fuck off. Then you wouldn't have problems with assimilation or crime, because they would mostly be working in good jobs, and the numbers would be low.

Working in a good job doesn't mean that a person isn't a fundamentalist muslim implacably opposed to democracy, and utterly dedicated to the imposition of Sharia in their host country.

Please also note that at least two of the militant muslims who have launched attacks in the UK were doctors working in the NHS.

[Cormac]

Surely a social and racial experiment like this should be put to a referendum, not slipped in gradually and quietly under the counter? If the people have voted for it, then that's fair enough. You give way to the majority. But being lied to, and conned, and called names if you complain, is bound to make people crack in the end.

Sounds like you're surprised that the people of the country never get a say when it comes to important issues. This is nothing new. Governments do what they want to do, usually whatever is good for business. Governments aren't in the business of ruling in accordance to the will of the people. They don't represent citizens, they represent corporations. I don't know enough about Norwegian politics, but in canaduh the only choice citizens have is between 3 political parties with nearly identical agendas. Once one of those parties is elected, they do what they wish and don't much care about public opinion. Look at huge issues like going to war, or drug legalization. Same as immigration. It's called "liberal democracy".

But Chavez represents the people?

How exactly does a new political movement, inspired by and run by citizens come into being and achieve its aims in Cuba?

The issue of corporate influence on democratic government is one for better political governance, not capitulation to the cult of personality and oligarchy that communism inevitably produces.

[Cormac]

We should just pick and choose the rich, qualified, talented immigrants, of any colour or religion, and tell the rest to fuck off. Then you wouldn't have problems with assimilation or crime, because they would mostly be working in good jobs, and the numbers would be low.

And then the people would be complaining that they are driving cars we can't afford buying all the good houses and putting the prices up and taking all the good jobs ?

I don't think so. I've never thought that I could do my doctor's job, if he had stayed away. I don't mind more competition for well-paid jobs, because the well-paid can afford to live on a little less. It's the lowest paid who can't handle the competition.
And if well paid immigrants buy big houses, that's ok. It's work for the builders.

It's only the unskilled immigrants that are a problem. Their numbers are large, and they compete unfairly against the poorest in society.

Perhaps the answer is to fight against poverty itself then.

Define poverty please.

[Cormac]

No, it's just cyclical, which every good capitalist knows full well, and plans for.

Just curious (genuinely), what about the recklessness that left a bunch of banks in need of a bail-out? Are you equally aggrieved about their demanding the people's money in order to keep them running?

Absolutely! The consequences of not bailing out the banks would have been some failed banks and pissed off investors overseas. Those failed banks would quickly be replaced by new banks with better policies, and people would pay more attention to how their banks are handling their money.

As much as I generally disagree with you I'm glad to see that you're consistent in your views.

You'll find that the drive to "bail-out" banks came from the left-wing, not the right-wing (except corporate tail-coat riders).

The whole point of conservative economics is that you should bear the consequences of the risks you take, and this, in prudent banking, would have severely restricted the risks that banks were willing to take over the last ten to fifteen years.

It is a failing of banks to understand the real nature of risk, and their reliance on economists as risk-managers while conveniently (for them) forgetting that economics is NOt a science that has led to this problem. That approach allowed them to continue to reduce the amount of capital they had to hold against increasingly risky lending practices.

Banks are traditionally funded by both shareholders, lenders, and also deposit account holders (who, believe it or not, are considered as lenders to the bank under the law). All of these people contractually take on varying degrees of risk of bank failure, and consequently take on the risk of complete loss of their money. This is the principle upon which banking is founded, and it is very odd that this has not been allowed to happen.

In fact, there is a strong argument to say that the ongoing uncertainty and jittery behaviour in markets is precisely because this has not been allowed to happen. We're in uncharted territory, and it is not known what the limits of these bank guarantees can be.

[Cormac]

Well, in Britain, you pay in taxes and insurance contributions, and you get paid out on that when you retire. Nobody mentioned immigrants in that deal.
It's a fallacy, with so many people out of work. The last thing you need is more unskilled labour. They aren't going to pay for anybody's pensions, unless there are more jobs.
.

Actually, in Britain, those working pay for those retired.

Social insurance contributions today pay for today's pensioners.

This is a social timebomb.

[Cormac]

As long as there is free movement of capital there should also be free movement of labour.

Why? How is the free movement of capital related to the international movement of immigrants? Are you under some mistaken impression that persons in other countries have some right to access the capital of another nation? On what basis do you make such a claim? Are you aware that international capital movement is anything but "free," and that profits made in one nation are taxed in that nation, and may be taxed in the nation to which they are transferred as well?

Actually, this is not the case in all countries - it doesn't happen in the EU. But it doesn't undermine your argument about who owns capital and who has the right to that capital, and the fact that just because there is free movement of capital doesn't imply that there should be unlimited movement of labour.

[Cormac]

so, it irritates the fuck out of me that when all European countries had implemented a welfare state, and noone is really poverty stricken anymore, than the definition of poverty was changed to being based on a percentage of the average income, rather than a breadline based calculation. This allows leftists to push their property is theft agenda surreptitiously, as most people don't realise what is meant in the modern world by "poverty". This is one reason why there is a welfare culture out there, where generations of families - probably the fifth or sixth generation (in Ireland at least) have lived on welfare and have no intention of ever working.

Poverty definitions between 1st and 3rd world are different because of very different circumstances, someone with very little in the 3rd world probably have more land to grow food on than someone who is poor in the 1st world (most people in the 1st world bar US generally have zero growable land whether they are rich or poor). £50 per week may well buy 3 goats and an acre of desert in Somalia but you are going to struggle with on that in the UK.

The main reason there is a welfare culture is partly because there are people who abuse but more relevant is most societies simply have no need for those in bottom to do any work. 100 years ago everyone could work down a mine, work in a factory etc but you need far more of an education to even work in Mcdonalds than you would to do those jobs. So you have a welfare state partly as a safety net for people who do work but as much to stop those at the bottom starving or more practically rioting

You miss my point entirely.

We have welfare states in Europe precisely so that we will no longer have people starving, or having to live on the streets, or dying for want of healthcare. I am a conservative, economically speaking, and for conservative principles, I think the welfare state is a good idea (but with strict limits). This is because, in the interest of improving economic performance, it is good for society to have good health, an ever improving educational profile across society, and the limitation of violent social unrest.

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income.

The notion underpinning this is that people will be "excluded" from social intercourse if they don't also have a flatscreen television and a foreign holiday once or twice a year. This is a corrupting concept, in my view. It is effectively saying that it is ok for people to completely allow other people to pay for their lifestyles, even though the dependent is:

1. Completely able-bodied and mentally competent
2. Not related to the person or people on whom they're dependent.

[Cormac]

All nations are formed by some variety of genocide through this can include assimilation, ones that currently have problems are ones didnt complete the process.

The idea of different cultures living under the same local rulership (as opposed to some empire) is a modern invention (and a very good one)

Not necessarily. I think modern views in archaeology holds that in many cases assimilation occurred. This is probably what happened in Ireland (until the British used Divide and Rule). The waves of immigration before that, with different peoples (who weren't Celts by the way as Celts strictly speaking, did not live in Ireland), arriving in Ireland, did not lead to genocide, but assimilation, generally.

This isn't to say that there weren't battles, because there undoubtedly were. But genocide didn't happen in Ireland until the Famine, and whether or not the famine was a genocide is a very debatable point.

[mistermack]

Cormac, what you ignore is that there are two groups of people living off the work that others do.
One is the long term unemployed. I stress long term, because the short term unemployed are simply drawing on what they have paid in. It's their own money that they draw.
The other group is people with a lot of capital. There are an awful lot of them, and they simply never need to work, and live on their investments.

Both groups are inactive, and living on the work of others.

The long-term unemployed comprise a range of people.
Some unable, some disabled, some who want work but live in the wrong place, and some who don't want to work.

Those living on capital have often just inherited it. They never work, and pass that privilege down to their kids. And although their numbers might be smaller than those on benefit who don't want to work, the money they get is usually much higher.

I would do something about both sets of people.
.

[MrJonno]

All nations are formed by some variety of genocide through this can include assimilation, ones that currently have problems are ones didnt complete the process.

The idea of different cultures living under the same local rulership (as opposed to some empire) is a modern invention (and a very good one)

Not necessarily. I think modern views in archaeology holds that in many cases assimilation occurred. This is probably what happened in Ireland (until the British used Divide and Rule). The waves of immigration before that, with different peoples (who weren't Celts by the way as Celts strictly speaking, did not live in Ireland), arriving in Ireland, did not lead to genocide, but assimilation, generally.

This isn't to say that there weren't battles, because there undoubtedly were. But genocide didn't happen in Ireland until the Famine, and whether or not the famine was a genocide is a very debatable point.

Not convinced countries really existed until the invention of decent transport and communications, no single power could possibly rule any sort of area without some sort of local warlord with extremely limited loyalty to the centre. The nation state idea is probably no more than 300-400 years old. Assimilation where you either convert or die or even just be excluded from society is a form of cultural genocide