[lit-ideas] Re: Hard core ideology
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:44:20 +0100 (BST)
(Lawrence)
>>>>>>>>>>
The West has no intention of giving it up so when it discovers that its
population isn’t
growing, it imports workers from elsewhere. That would work out if the
imported workers fit the pattern we have in America, but in much of
Europe they have been importing Islamic Fundamentalists who have no
intention of integrating into European society. It would be better, in
my opinion for these nations (and ours) to decide to pay for the Social
Security shortfall as another entitlement. If foreign workers can’t or
won’t integrate, it would be better for all concerned if they stayed in
their own countries.
<<<<<<<<<<
I take it you mean "importing Muslims". Various European countries indeed
imported Muslims (and others from former colonies) as "guest workers", whose
chances of integrating were minimal. Though those programmes have faded,
immigration restrictions have taken their place, and most Muslim entrants to EU
countries, now, are asylum seekers or family members. "Integration", well, it
depends what you mean. I could name some notably integrated British Muslims --
that is, notable Britons who are Muslim and whom I'd call integrated -- but I'm
not sure there's much point.
I don't know what you mean by "pay for the Social Security shortfall as another
entitlement".
Judy Evans, Cardiff
--- On Tue, 6/9/11, Jack Spratt <dosflounder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Jack Spratt <dosflounder@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Hard core ideology
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 6 September, 2011, 18:37
There's nothing here to respond to. It's just an ideological rant about
liberals and Marxists. When you say entitlements, who are you complaining
is getting the entitlements? The people or the corporations? Corporations
have legal status as people. The banks (legal corporate people) received
almost a trillion dollars (800 billion dollars) in 2008 to keep from
collapsing. Homeowners received zilch, and they drive the consumer economy.
Had homeowners been given the 800 billion dollars to pay off their mortgages,
they'd be spending and the economy would be growing. After all that money, the
banks aren't even lending. One of the reasons today's financial mess can't be
fixed the way the savings and loan mess was fixed around 1990 is because today
the corruption in the financial industry is immeasurably greater.
J.S.
Lawrence's:
No, it isn’t sloppy use. A “BUBBLE” (upper case) implies passivity, an
accident. The stock market goes up and no one knows why, but let’s all make a
lot of money! -- and then the BUBBLE bursts. A “Ponzi Scheme” implies
maliciousness. The orchestrators of the scheme hope to make their money and get
out before the Ponzi bubble (lower case) bursts. In the Western European and
North America cases, the orchestrators hoped to have their welfare entitlements
in place and the heck with the bubble-bursting (cynical capitalists knowing the
Ponzi bubble was going to burst, made their money and got out). Fannie Mae and
Freddy Mack were tools of Liberals who (following the Liberal ideal of taking
from the rich and giving to the poor) insisted on selling houses to people
who couldn’t afford them.
As I said in an earlier note on this subject, I have no objection to
entitlements, as long as a nation can afford them. The Obama administration,
among others, is pushing through entitlements irresponsibly in my opinion. It
is as though he hopes to get his pet programs approved before his Ponzi bubble
bursts.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next election. Will Americans
want fiscal responsibility or more entitlements? In France when this issue was
put to them, the voters chose the continuation of their entitlements instead of
fiscal responsibility. Will we do the same?
Social Security isn’t supposed to be an entitlement. It assumes a growing
population. The West has no intention of giving it up so when it discovers that
its population isn’t growing, it imports workers from elsewhere. That would
work out if the imported workers fit the pattern we have in America, but in
much of Europe they have been importing Islamic Fundamentalists who have no
intention of integrating into European society. It would be better, in my
opinion for these nations (and ours) to decide to pay for the Social Security
shortfall as another entitlement. If foreign workers can’t or won’t integrate,
it would be better for all concerned if they stayed in their own countries.
BTW, Jack, you are beginning to sound like a fellow who liked to argue with me
years ago, an Economist who called himself a Marxian.
Other related posts:
