Search This Blog

Friday, June 27, 2014

Would You Pay to Work?

Many years ago, I was at a rock concert in the San Diego stadium and there were around 50,000 people in attendance. I forget who the main act was, but the warm up band was decidedly mediocre in my opinion. And given that the crowd's response to the band was tepid at best, apparently a lot of people agreed with me.

I'm a musician and songwriter and I remember thinking that I would pay money, perhaps even a lot of money, to be able play a venue with 50,000 people. That was the moment that I began thinking about the sorts of circumstances where someone would pay to work.

There are actually quite a few circumstances where people either pay to work or work for free.  The most widespread example of paying to work are graduate students.  They work their asses off and pay tuition for the privilege of doing so.

Let's move from the skilled and somewhat elite graduate students or hobbyist songwriters and consider the meaning of jobs at the lower end of the skill spectrum. It turns out that for many people, the job itself has a significant positive impact on happiness:
[T]he well-established finding that unemployment has major negative effects on well-being, including both mental and physical health. And the effects are remarkably persistent. A study using German panel data examined changes in reported life satisfaction after marriage, divorce, birth of a child, death of a spouse, layoff, and unemployment. All had predictable effects in the short term, but for five of the six the effect generally wore off with time: the joy of having a new baby subsided, while the pain of a loved one’s death gradually faded. The exception was unemployment: even after five years, the researchers found little evidence of adaptation. 
Evidence even more directly on point comes from the experience of welfare reform – specifically, the imposition of work requirements on recipients of public assistance. Interestingly, studies of the economic consequences of reform showed little or no change in recipients’ material well-being. But a pair of studies found a positive impact on single mothers’ happiness as a result of moving off welfare and finding work.
It turns out you may be able to buy happiness and that happiness takes the form of a job.  If you didn't have a job but did have money, it might be worth buying the job with that money.

270 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 270 of 270
Clovis said...

Bret,


Do you see any relationship between V' and the interest rates of an economy?

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "Do you see any relationship between V' and the interest rates of an economy?"

Sure. It's a bit indirect, but generally, increasing real interest rates makes money more expensive, which reduces the demand for money, which basically means that people borrow less and then don't spend the money they didn't borrow. Both borrowing and spending are transactions, and since V is essentially the rate of transactions, with less borrowing and spending, V will drop relative to what it otherwise would have been, which means that V' is lower. Shortened, increasing interest rates will push V' down in the general case.

Anonymous said...

All;

I would note that the claim that nations that can print money can't run out is equivalent to claiming M' can be increased without limit.

Clovis;

A side effect is that we start realizing things are different from Detroit after all

No. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. It is rare that a precedent is exact, one must look at the essentials and not irrelevant details. Detroit remains a good model of the process of economic collapse for modern America.

Clovis said...

Bret,

---
Shortened, increasing interest rates will push V' down in the general case.
---
And if we were to witness the contrary, how would you take that in account?

For example, it may be that it is easy to just hoard money if the interest rate is 0%, for if you apply it in a savings account it will make no difference. But if the interest is higher, it is more costly to keep the money in a box, since you are losing compared to applying it, so it looks like in this case V' would increase with an increase in interest rate.

In particular, what do you think is going to happen when the FED increases the interest rate, will V' go down or up?

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
---

I don't know if you are right on Detroit, but I find the above phrase beautiful. I don't remember seeing it before, is it a common saying around?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

It is a common saying around here :-).

adri said...

I've googled it, some attrribute it to Mark Twain. It does look like something he would write.

Is there anyone as good as him in American literature these days?

adri said...

Well, this is still Clovis using his wife's computer...

erp said...

Tom Wolfe's early essays.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "And if we were to witness the contrary, how would you take that in account?"

Other factors were more important at the time.

Note that those formulas and variables reflect "real" as opposed to nominal values. If real and nominal interest rates are negative for any significant length of time, then the economic system is probably beyond hope at that point.

Bret said...

aog wrote: "I would note that the claim that nations that can print money can't run out is equivalent to claiming M' can be increased without limit."

I'm not sure I can decipher that. Yes, fiat currency nations can increase M' without limit without running out of money.

But note that I did NOT make the claim that printing money never adversely affects economies.

Anonymous said...

Bret;

Ah, yes, you are technically correct. I was taking a more pragmatic point of view of "running out of money" meaning "unable to pay" no matter how money is printed. That is, after all, what happened in the Weimar Republic.

Clovis said...

AOG,


I think you underestimate the importance of the American economy and the dollar to the rest of the world. You also miss a few things about this fiat money system.

It is presently in the interest of pretty much everyone that you keep doing well. It means everybody will keep ignoring any risk of default by the US, and as long as people keep believing you will pay (and you only need to print paper for that), that will play in a self-fulfilling dynamics.

That won't change so soon, because the ultimate anchor for that system is not your printer, but the stable geopolitical order now assigned to the world.

The only potencies able to aspire for changing that order have, in the foreseeable future, no reason for doing so, since that would means getting out of a win-win situation to a lose-lose one, and no rational power would do that.

So the only risk for the US is if any of those potencies turn into irrational players. That may happen, we never know, but there again: it has little to do with the printing machine.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

It is presently in the interest of pretty much everyone that you keep doing well

No, it's not. That's the error in you analysis. It's certainly not in the interests of the MAL, or they would behave very differently. Read 1984 to see how that works (the MAL, to a large extent, sees 1984 as an instructional manual, not a warning). As Instapundit frequently notes "they'll turns us into beggars because they're easier to please".

Internationally, there's not shortage of nations who would be happy to see the USA do poorly (e.g. Russia).

as long as people keep believing you will pay (and you only need to print paper for that)

No. That was my point above - just because it has worked so far does not mean it will work forever. Everything has a breaking point.

the stable geopolitical order now assigned to the world.

The breakdown of which apparently is no concern to the Obama Administration. Moreover, Obama is doing precisely what he said earlier, making America just one nation among many, not at all special. The rest of the world loved him for it, so your claims here seemed undermined by actual history.

Clovis said...

AOG,

I think you arguments are getting subjective, and maybe so are mine, so it is hard to argue further if this is only about perceptions.

I disagree that "there's not shortage of nations who would be happy to see the USA do poorly". I think there are few in that category, you are seeing enemies in your shadow, it is a bit paranoid.

Both Russia and China profit much from the present order, and they only lose by any financial crisis in the US.

I also think that your feeling that "Obama is doing precisely what he said earlier, making America just one nation among many, not at all special" is just that, a feeling. He may be showing some incompetence at foreign policy, sure, but even your errors clearly show you are not just one more nation around.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

You think I'm paranoid, I think you are panglossian. But even the BBC seems more with me than you. On the subject of Russia, even the New Republic now admits that Mitt Romney was right about Russia as an enemy.

As for Obama on the subject, that's not my "feeling", that's a quote. See here for a start frpm an Obama supporter who agrees with him on that point.

Clovis said...

Panglossian? Gee, I needed to go for the dictionary for this one.

Hey, you were actively complaining about Old Media, but now you use it as a counter-argument? So let me tell you a thing, they lied to you again.

Your BBC link is not only old, but misses the mark by far. I can tell you truly, I have seen a steady and marked decline in anti-Americanism in my own country during my lifetime. We are the biggest country in LA, so it must count a bit, right?

The vitriolic expections, like Venezuela and Argentina, are not seen in a good light even among a sizeable portion of the rest of the LA's Left.

erp said...

Aog, yikes did you see Lemos' reaction to comments disagreeing with him? I didn't read past that first comment response and we don't need to see the world in person to know how things are. People are clamoring to come here not the other way around.

We don't force people to stay here either. See greener pastures, don't slam the door on your way out, or as the saying goes, Hasta la vista, baby.

The bit of traveling we've done did nothing to disabuse me of the fact that I owe my father my undying gratitude for arranging that I was born here, even if was in the Bronx and not in Maui. :-)

Bret said...

erp wrote: "...even if was in the Bronx and not in Maui."

If it was Maui, you would've ended up being a liberal like Harry! :-)

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

you were actively complaining about Old Media, but now you use it as a counter-argument?

Admission against interest. Hence the phrasing "even the BBC".

On anti-Americanism in Latin America, you seem to have gone from me seeing "enemies my shadow" to just not noticing it's not as bad as it was. I must say it is not very reassuring to a paranoid to say "your enemies don't hate you quite as much now as they did before".

erp said...

Bret, the Bronx (or Queens) isn't wanting for liberals either. In my life, I never ever met or knew a non-lefty or a protestant! until I moved to Connecticut with two babies and a third on the way. Luckily, I never was a team player and figured out things for myself.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
I must say it is not very reassuring to a paranoid to say "your enemies don't hate you quite as much now as they did before".
---
But then you changed the subject of the initial phrase.

You first said "there's not shortage of nations who would be happy to see the USA do poorly".

The anti-Americanism in LA rarely translated into real action against US interests. And for every Leftist anti-American, many times there were two pro-US Rightists, making that country an ally instead of an enemy.

But you keep not addressing my main point, which was about how much of the world depends on the US. Any LA Leftist wishing a bad outcome for the US economy is pointing the gun to himself. Many times the main determinant for their economies future is the FED, instead of their own central banks.

Give yourself one simple assignment to test your paranoid: go hunting for foreign newspapers describing the 2007 crisis back then. You will mostly see they all worried about the US economy prospects. Use google translator and test it for LA, Russia, China, and then tell me again if I am a Panglossian or just a plain realist.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

The anti-Americanism in LA rarely translated into real action against US interests

Not sure I agree, but if true, so what? The quote of mine you cite is completely consistent with general animus and no action.

my main point, which was about how much of the world depends on the US

Because it's irrelevant.

LA Leftist wishing a bad outcome for the US economy is pointing the gun to himself

As if that would be the first time they had done that. As far as I can tell, this is the standard mode of operation for Latin American Lefists, based on the outcomes of their political efforts. Have you read this book?

I'm sure other nations expressed worry about their own economic problems if the USA had a depression. That doesn't change decades of animus and doesn't mean they wouldn't have been happy to see the USA go down if it didn't hurt them. I would in contrast point to the latest immigration crisis which requires the active support from Central American governments and Mexico. That'a deliberate assault on American sovereignty which I can't see as anything other than a hostile act, far more significant than articles in newspapers.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
I would in contrast point to the latest immigration crisis which requires the active support from Central American governments and Mexico. That'a deliberate assault on American sovereignty [...]
---

I see, because they hate America so bad that they want to emmigrate to there so they can destroy the country from inside.

Yep, makes sense.

Anonymous said...

I'm not talking about the policy goals of the illegal immigrants but those who facilitated their travels.

Clovis said...

AOG,

I can't talk much about Mexico or Central America, but I can assure you none of the illegal Brazilian immigrants in the US had their travels facilitated by our govt.

They just go.

I find it amusing that you are bothered by their freedom to do just that.

Or is it your belief that "All animals are free, but some animals are more free than others"?

erp said...

... so they can destroy the country from inside.

Congratulations Clovis, quoting* 'enry 'iggins, I think you got it!

… and yes it makes eminent sense.

Your side plays the very long game. Khrushchev’s famous threat from the 50’s, “we’ll destroy you from within” has had a few short detours over the years, but you’re right on track now.

That's the goal of Obama et al. and their pals in the Middle East and the remnants of the old Soviet Union as well and when you all succeed, you'll wonder why the U.S. isn't the wonderful place it was in the old movies and TV sitcoms when we were hard working individuals inside the great melting pot and not a bunch of warring special interest groups of beggars clamoring for handouts.

You can regulate and mandate and print as much paper as you want, it will be worthless without us working stiffs to pay for it all and our numbers are dwindling fast no matter the fairy tales told in the media and the multitudinous studies and statistics paid for by us victims you seem to think make your point.

*song from "My Fair Lady"

erp said...

Clovis, can you really not see the difference between people who:

a. want to become Americans and come (emigrate) to the U.S. legally following the proscribed steps to become citizens and b. sneak across the border illegally or over stay their visas?

Let me make it easy for you.

a. Welcomed guests who’ve agreed to abide by the “house rules” invited into your home;
b. Intruders entering your home uninvited, often violently who have no respect for your house rules.

Clovis said...

Erp,

Sorry, I've never heard anything from this 'enry 'iggins.

And thank you for including me in this wide conspiracy to dominate the world. I never felt I was that important.

BTW, if you care to read my lines above, you won't finding me defending illegal immigration in any way. I am only countering this other paranoid idea by AOG that the govts in LA are actively helping their citizens to invade your country. They are not. It is a movement mostly beyond their powers.

erp said...

"My Fair Lady" is a wonderful adaptation of "Pygmalion." If you haven't seen it, you are in for a treat. In the movie version, Henry Higgins is played by Rex Harrison who sings a song that his charge has "got it," i.e., sounds of proper pronunciation. Not only are the story and the music great, but the lyrics are fabulous.

Not that he needs it, but I’d like to elaborate on aog's comments.

Our current administration to which I refer as Obama et al. for ease of typing, is most definitely pandering to a large voting bloc by conspiring with some officials* south of our border to accept surplus and unwanted persons, some of which are (and I find this despicable on so many levels) children to tug on the heart strings of most human beings, while the majority are criminals or other undesirables. You might call it Obama et al.’s version of Mariel** boat people when, you may have heard, Castro in one fell swoop emptied his prisons and criminal asylums and dumped a lot of his problems on Miami.

* The president of Honduras’ wife actually went to Texas for a photo op to check on the children’s welfare. She is apparently even more of an opportunist than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

**Even Castro/Carter didn’t sink so low as to send unattended children.

Clovis said...

Erp,

Carter happened before I was born, so excuse me for not having heard about this Mariel boat.

What I know is that your country has a Law that grants any Cuban citizen automatic refuge once they step in your land. It is beyond me why then you complain when they actually do so.

I also have little knowledge of Honduras affairs these days. But I do remember they had a coup back in 2009, one that marked some strain in Brazil-US relations, for while Brazil heartedly believed the usual US talk on supporting democracies and tried to do just that, by denouncing the coup, the US kindly gave his nod for the military junta. (The deposed president took refuge in Hondura's Brazilian embassy for a while, with constant threats of invasion by their military)

Now you complain their citizens want out and are running for your country?

"Irony" does not even begin to describe it for those with a little bit of memory.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

You should scroll back and read your own comments. That is,

if you care to read my lines above, you won't finding me defending illegal immigration in any way

contrasted with your comment to me

I find it amusing that you are bothered by their freedom to do just that.

It is difficult to construct a stronger defense than to claim it as a "freedom to do just that [illegally immigrate]".

You should already read a bit more about Latin America - Mexico has been actively and openly supporting illegal immigration to the USA for decades. It is simply not possible for the current wave of Central American immigrants to have crossed Mexico in such numbers without at least tacit support from the Mexican government - Mexico is allowed to have very vigorous and harsh border enforcement without complaint.

This is also why I consider you panglossian - you don't look at evidence, you just say "oh, that's paranoid, governments would never do that kind of thing!". Governments throughout history have done much worse things for less reason.

Your mention of Honduras is mordantly amusing, since it was the Obama Administration that orchestrated that fiasco. So, yes, I am complaining about the Obama Adminstration doing that in conjunction with my other complaints of its policies on illegal immigration. Irony does not even begin to describe you bringing that up in this context.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
It is difficult to construct a stronger defense than to claim it as a "freedom to do just that [illegally immigrate]".
---
Sorry if I did not make myself clear, but I was talking about their freedom to *emmigrate*, not about any freedom to illegally enter your country.

The context was that you were accusing those governments of not stopping that, as far as I understood. Thinking about my own government, there is nothing it can do to stop a law abiding citizen from getting out if that's what he wants. Only a dictatorship would do that.

But now I understand better your point. You are right in blaming Mexico for allowing other nationals to cross its northern borders. Though I don't know if you can blame it all on them, those are pretty long borders after all. Not to mention the power the cartels have in Mexico, making a parallel State.

---
Mexico has been actively and openly supporting illegal immigration to the USA for decades.
---
I don't know if things are that simple. As I understand it, you are interpreting purpose in a process that is mostly and truly a big mess.

I also live in a country that provided a reasonable number of illegals to your country, and I can assure you it was never intentionally induced by the Government, nor it was within its reach to stop that flux.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Let me quote you -

---
I can assure you none of the illegal Brazilian immigrants in the US had their travels facilitated by our govt.

They just go.

I find it amusing that you are bothered by their freedom to do just that. [emphasis added]
---

It seems quite clear to me you wrote about the "freedom" of illegal immigrants to become such.

you are interpreting purpose in a process that is mostly and truly a big mess.

No. There's no shortage of evidence, including actions by the Mexican government. What makes you panglossian is not that you disagree with me, but that you presume my view is so unrealistic that I can't even have any evidence at all for it.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
It seems quite clear to me you wrote about the "freedom" of illegal immigrants to become such.
---
Anyone is free to make his own decisions and deal with their consequences. It is not in the Mexican govt hands to control to where their citizens decide to go. It is your job to stop aliens from crossing your borders, not Mexico's.

Take it the other way around. Do you believe it is within the US Govt. powers to stop you from crossing that border to Mexico?


---
What makes you panglossian is not that you disagree with me, but that you presume my view is so unrealistic that I can't even have any evidence at all for it.
---
Not quite. I just do not assume any of your future actions. I work with any evidence you have presented, not with the ones you may or may not present in future.

IOW, you think me Panglossian because you somehow expect your opinion to carry more weight than the facts you showed to justify it. I don't know why you feel entitled for that treatment.

Clovis said...

Can you quote to me exactly where, in the official statement they quoted iln that last link of yours, you can interpret the Mexican govt is objecting to the USA controlling its borders?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

I would say every single paragraph.

1) Being "concerned" about the National Guard on the Texas border to enforce immigration law. Why be concerned unless you object to such enforcement

2,3) "shared responsibility". What can that mean except the USA is responsible to supporting the illegal immigrants? How can it be the responsibility of the USA at all, otherwise?

4) "the protection of the migrants’ human rights", that is, your claimed freedom to illegally immigrate to the USA.

What effect do you think was intended by this statement by the Mexican Goverment, other than to discourage the USA from controlling entry across its borders?

Clovis said...

AOG,

Every single paragraph?

OK... if that mild and boring text constitute a "hostile act by the Mexican government", why don't you just declare war on them?

Start shooting every one of those trespassing little kids and you'll see the problem solved pretty fast.

Would it be a solution good enough for you?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

If that kind of straw man is all you've got left, my work here is done.

P.S. You might look up the difference between "hostile act" and "act of war". Not at all the same thing. "False dichotomy" would be a good one as well, if you see no policy space between open borders and guard towers with kill zones.

Anonymous said...

A nice quote on the subject --

"Guatemalan president: Central America needs at least $2 billion ‘to attack the root of the problem’"

I don't know about you guys but I identity the human trafficking kingpin by the "pay to the order of" box on the ransom check.

erp said...

aol, apparently children are the targets of choice these days with the "freedom fighters" in the ME using kids to dig their tunnels and the democratically elected leaders in SA using them for bargaining chips and Obama et al. using them to tug at the heart strings of We, the People.

How Low Can They Go?

Lower than can be imagined in my universe.

Clovis said...

AOG,

Interesting how you quit the game when I take your words to their logical consequence.

Your human traficking kingpin happens to be a long time ally of the USA and its LA policies. So there again, irony does not even begin to describe it for those with a little bit of memory...

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

No, you didn't. You just made up strawment. For example, almost every other nation in the world manages to enforce its border security without "shooting every one of those trespassing little kids". It's a nonsense comment, not a logical conclusion.

Clovis said...

AOG,

The nations who enforce their borders without shots are the ones that refrain form using this "hostile act" language with their neighbors.

The ones who use that language usually pull the trigger now and then. Take a look at the border between the Koreas, for example.

erp said...

Clovis, you mean like this non-hostile action.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Brutal dictatorship, legal state of war, real risk of military invasion, guard towers, minefields - yeah, exactly like the US / Mexico border. Your analogy is just spot on.

I would also note you've moved the goal posts again, from "shooting every one of those trespassing little kids" to "without shots". Do you really see those as equivalent?

P.S. What would you call a foreign nation that tries to profit from its citizens breaking the laws of your nation? A friendly act from a long time ally?

Clovis said...

Erp,

Suppose the US police finds a Mexican in a truck full of loaded guns, entering the US with no visa and no permit for those weapons - how many years in jail would he be looking at?



AOG,

Can you tell me how are those countries profiting from sending their children to the US?

In a world of declining fertility rates, you are getting free kids and they are losing their lifeblood, quite literally.

erp said...

Clovis, This marine is clearly not a terrorist and even detaining him overnight would have been an outrage, but keeping him jail since April for some demented moral equivalent PR victory ranks among the worst of Obama et al.'s many travesties.

Why isn't our ambassador demanding his release or are we working on some sort prisoner exchange where we let a bunch of criminals out of jail to prey on the public in return for him?

Only 15% or so of the flood are minors. The rest are undesirables in every sense of the word.

And if what you say is true and they are the future of the planet, why isn't the rest of the world clamoring for them? Brazil, for instance.

You may not be aware, but these kids are worth money to foster caregivers and communities. They come complete with a $6,000 per month federal subsidy and it's a sure bet a lot of that money will be "redistributed" back to the pols. Looks like the mayor of Chicago will be at the head of line with his hand out.

This administration is so disgusting, it makes one nostalgic for LBJ.

erp said...

Oh, BTW - US citizens don't or didn't need VISA's to enter Mexico or Canada.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Can you tell me how are those countries profiting from sending their children to the US?

Why? That's not something I claimed. Scroll back and check. For what I did claim, I provided a link. Scroll back and click.

Clovis said...

Erp,


The ex-marine broke a law in Mexico. Simple as that. I understand you think so low of Mexicans that you think their laws worthless, but they don't really care for your opinion, just as you do not care for theirs.

And be sure that the tourist automatic visa Americans enjoy when visiting Mexico does not include a gun permit.


AOG,

Let me see, you just declared this:

"What would you call a foreign nation that tries to profit from its citizens breaking the laws of your nation?"

And yet it is contradictory with the question I posed afterwards? Your line on profiting did not contain any restriction to your previous link.

BTW, my comment was not on Guatemala being a long time ally, but his president. If you feel you did not choose well your friends in past, what can I say? Freedom is about dealing with your bad choices too, right?

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
And if what you say is true and they are the future of the planet, why isn't the rest of the world clamoring for them? Brazil, for instance.
---

This asks for a separate answer.

I would love to adopt one kid, Erp. And I would have no problem where he/she to come from Guatemala, China or the Moon.

Brazil has a truly inefficient system for adoptions. Idiot laws protecting bureaucrats instead of children, a moronic justice system and distorted incentive systems, all maximizing the time they stay in orphanages instead of a home.

I know couples who tried for years, without success, even though there is no shortage of children waiting in the line.

If the US still aspires for being the salt of the Earth, what it should do is to build an efficient and fast-track system to make those kids able to be adopted as quickly as possible. I bet there is no shortage of couples who would be happy to receive them in your country.

AOG: sorry if my paragraph above offends you. How dare I to make such an assault on your sovereignty by giving my opinion on your business, right? But please do not declare war on Brazil, my lines are not govt. sanctioned.

erp said...

This is a partial list of where the Obama Kids are being sent all over the country.

Some are being sent to the broken down strip mall about 30 miles from here in Daytona Beach, Florida -- along with almost three million of our dollars.

FTA 2014 Daytona Beach, FL – 1 facility – Neighbor to Family [Residential and Transitional Foster Care] Address: 955 Orange Avenue, Ste M DAYTONA BEACH, FL 32114 HHS Grant $2,727,525. Here’s a Google Map of the area.

Perhaps that’s why the governor of Maryland changed his mind about taking some of them. I sure wouldn’t be surprised if the lion’s share of those payments weren’t “redistributed” to Democratic pols.


That might take care of the underage “refugees” who make up only 15% or so of those coming into the country via the modern version of the underground railroad, but what about the criminals and gang members who make up much of the rest of our uninvited guests?

They’ll add to the mix of violence and lawlessness we’re more and more willing to accept as the new normal.

erp said...

Sorry, here’s the link to the Google Map of the area.

Clovis, these kids are not coming here to be adopted. In my family are two Guatemalan by birth children, but the parents went there to do it legally and the children are truly and lovingly theirs and ours. Another child who was adopted by an in-law was severely disabled and died in their care, but she was an integral part of the family and her short life was made as happy as possible. She was a real cutie and made everyone happy with her smile.

I won't repeat my comment about why this marine suffering from PTSD doesn't belong in prison.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

you just declared

No. You quoted a question, not a declaration. Perhaps you could answer that question.

Clovis said...

Erp,


As I understand it, only the children pose any deportation problem to you, for the adults taken in the border can all be freely deported back. So why are you mixing both cases?

AOG,

Had you bothered to answer my point on Guatemala's president, I would not need to answer your question.

That's a guy used to the easy life of selling his people's blood to American interests. In past he would sell the head of a few leftists to the CIA and make money enough for his comfortable life. Now, with the ghost of the cold war gone, how to keep making money? He surely needed to adapt business... And you know he is making an offer you can't refuse, right?

erp said...

As I've said before, you have only the most tenuous understanding of the U.S. and even most of that is wrong.

Clovis said...

So pray tell me Erp, is there any law barring you from deporting any of the trespassing adults?

I know a number of them succeed in avoiding the police while entering, but that was not the point here.

erp said...

I don't have any links handy, but it's been reported that there are about 3 million illegals here. Sending kids here alone is but a despicable ploy to tug at our heart strings and allow them to stay at a great cost. Obviously there is no way to ascertain who their parents or others relatives may be and people will be lining up to claim a relationship to get in on the gravy train.

You seem to think because the U.S. is "rich" through some nefarious rob the poor ala Harry's lunatic version of top hat capitalism, it is the obligation of U.S. taxpayers to take in all the planet's unfortunates even those who don't want to be bothered following the orderly path that previous immigrants have taken.

Sorry you can't legally adopt, but surely you can help unfortunate children in your vicinity by setting aside a portion of your income, as we have done, to help those in need around you. After all, you as a two professor family with professional parents, one a physician must be among the richest in your corner of the world.

Oh sorry, I forgot, lefties only use other people's money for good deeds, not their own personal funds.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

With regard to laws and adult illegal immigrants, there are some that can be used to delay deportation for very long periods of time. However, it really doesn't matter if the executive (currently the Obama Administration) ignores the law or actively works to prevent the enforcement there (for example, the federal objection to Arizona enforcing immigration law).

As for your other questions, I must confess I have completely lost the thread of what you're asking or what your position is. I can't even tell if you think illegal immigration is wrong or it's a basic "freedom", as you've stated both positions in this comment string. I will say the offer from the President of Guatemela could be quite easily refused.

Clovis said...

Erp,

I never asserted any external obligation on the US for its riches. As usual, you keep answering what you think I believe, as oppposed to anything I wrote.

Brazil has indeed many rich people too, unfortunately I am not one of them. It is your wide ignorance of other countries that leads you to believe that diplomas would be a sign of weatlh in Brazil.

And your memory is getting worse, the number of illegals is more like 11 million and counting.

Clovis said...

AOG,

I will make it easy for you:

- illegal immigration is wrong. My opposition was against generally blaming every country to the South for it. It is an individual decision, not a State sponsored one. It is your job to enforce your own laws.

- The çentral america countries currently giving you trouble are run by people you very much helped to be in power. It would be a healthy exercize to rethink if your past actions were in your best interests, for you look to have learned little from them.

erp said...

Thanks for correction and right now I don't have time to search your comments, so I'll take your word for what you say.

I'm sure there are many fabulously rich people in your country, but I'm also sure you are in the top 10%.

Advanced degrees only mean that you had the means to acquire them. You chose the easy course of teaching rather than the competitive and better paying course of working in the private sector, especially as you said, when you had the opportunity to stay in Germany.

Perhaps riding your bike around town and giving up the SUV would free up some money for the needy and provide you with healthy exercise providing a good example for your son. Never too soon to learn good habits.

Clovis said...

Erp,

There you are, making all sort of calls and judgments on other people lives, particularly about ones you know so little of.

The most authoritarian leftists have nothing on you. Behind all this rehearsed talk of freedom and liberty, hides a deeply control freak old aunty.

erp said...

Feds paying $7,000 per month to house adult illegals.

Well I am old and I am an aunty, but what is it that I want to control aside from out-of-control government interference in our lives?

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

My opposition was against generally blaming every country to the South for it.

I didn't do that, so I'll take this as not applying to me. (If you want to reply, "yes you did", please provide an actual quote that I wrote).

It is an individual decision, not a State sponsored one

Those are not opposites. An action can be both (e.g, joining the military).

You agreed with my charaterization of the Guatamalen President supporting human trafficing. Is that now in inoperative statement?

It would be a healthy exercize to rethink if your past actions were in your best interests, for you look to have learned little from them.

It turns out I am not in charge of American foreign policy so I can't make them do that. You do seem to get upset when I try, though.

Clovis said...

AOG,

The Guatemalan president is not directly supporting human trafficking, but some groups who are behind his shadow are. I won't bother to explain the difference if you do not do your homework first: try to read a bit about the cartelization of the LA and its relationship to previous USA backed dictatorships.

Hence my point on him making an offer you can't refuse, which was not literal.

Harry Eagar said...

'I didn't object to Mexican and Central American governments failing to stop their citizens, but actively aiding and abetting the illegal immigration.'

Eire does, too, but -- funny thing -- the oh-so-concerned never complain. Not that I've ever heard them, anyway.

For the record, I object but have never said so, eg, at Restating the Obvious.

Harry Eagar said...

' even the New Republic now admits that Mitt Romney was right about Russia as an enemy.'

Enemy of who? Putin is merely acting out the autarkic fantasies of the TP. That does not make Romney right.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] Enemy of who? Putin is merely acting out the autarkic fantasies of the TP. That does not make Romney right.

Given that your premise is so wide of the mark, it is no surprise your conclusion is barking mad.

There isn't enough time left in the evening to point out all the silliness in your statement.

You clearly know nothing about international relations; it is really a fascinating subject with which you should come to terms.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 270 of 270   Newer› Newest»