Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
HousePriceLottery

Immigration Debate - The Government Are Behind This

Recommended Posts

The government have started this debate on immigration. John Reid's comments on needing a sensible debate about it were the starting gun.

But I'm confused, the figures make them look bad, very bad.

Why have they suddenly starting talking about this, now of all times?

Very very odd, I don't like it, what are they up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government have started this debate on immigration. John Reid's comments on needing a sensible debate about it were the starting gun.

But I'm confused, the figures make them look bad, very bad.

Why have they suddenly starting talking about this, now of all times?

Very very odd, I don't like it, what are they up to?

I am the same as you , they are up to something.

Could it be that since their estimate of 15000 per year was slightly off the mark!!! that they will agree a figure of 50000 and make the people think that they have done a good job !!

Not once did Reid say that it was the governments mishandling/ ineptitude that caused this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the same as you , they are up to something.

Could it be that since their estimate of 15000 per year was slightly off the mark!!! that they will agree a figure of 50000 and make the people think that they have done a good job !!

Not once did Reid say that it was the governments mishandling/ ineptitude that caused this.

Perhaps we should have a sweepstake on how long it will be until one of the Property Pushers pops up with a "Prices will go up for ever because of immigration" reprise...

Put me down for a tenner on Wrigglesworth to be the first...

Edited by HousePriceLottery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shedfish

it's just off the scale isn't it. and they want to export their democratic principles too.

either:

politicians are up to something so nefarious it'll make all the Bilderberg / 911 etc conspiracies look like an episode of Rainbow,

or:

they are all just a bunch of useless empty suits

can't decide. maybe both :ph34r::)

Edited by Shedfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment is rising rapidly - far quicker than the stats show as many will be unable to claim diddly squat becuase of (now dwindling) savings or all the hoops that prevent the likes of self-employed claiming. Then there are allt eh other issues.

This is BIG trouble for the govt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's just off the scale isn't it. and they want to export their democratic principles too.

either:

politicians are up to something so nefarious it'll make all the Bilderberg / 911 etc conspiracies look like an episode of Rainbow,

or:

they are all just a bunch of useless empty suits

can't decide. maybe both :ph34r::)

Yep - they're upto something indeed.

It's called population control maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this:

http://www.itv.com/news/ad481e6cec88a1652e...f166ad1911.html

"Leading Muslims urge policy shift" on foreign policy

I thought when I heard this that they could be stepping on dangerous ground, because the Labour party has helped them quite a lot, and I have found that if the goverment helps you it tends fo f**k you over in equal measure some time later. They could cut off the tap of Asian immigration since they might think the Muslims won't vote for them en-mass anymore (being commonwealth citizens they can vote in general elections even if they are not British).

I don't think they care if they annoy the Eastern Europeans as they can't vote in general elections anyway, the Eastern Europeans also don't understand what our politicians are saying, and are generally left wing compared to us in any case what with being run by the commies and everything.

Edited by Della

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shedfish

i'm thinking John Carpenter's "They Live", but almost everyone has the sunglasses..

(this does not mean i think they're all aliens. David Icke i am not) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shedfish

note to self.. don't drink and type

makes me wonder about the powerful these days, were they one-time beatniks / hippies who overcompensated, or their straight contemporaries who sat and watched.

not a dig at baby boomers. i mean the individuals with a will to power today, and the thought process that drives them to rob from the poor and give to the rich with such open contempt.

either way they are still c*nts

and i will always talk sh!t. it is my democratic right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think all EU citizens living here are allowed to vote in our elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think all EU citizens living here are allowed to vote in our elections.

Only local elections and EU elections not general elections. Although I would not be surprised if this changes one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think all EU citizens living here are allowed to vote in our elections.

If this is true then it won't be long before we could have the equavilent of a hostile takeover in the business world. As a large portion of this lazy nation can't be ar$ed voting, fringe partys are getting bigger and bigger. All it would need is, (and this is just a dreamt up example) Mr Koslowski to form the Polish Plumbers Party, and declare that all immigrants are immidiately entitled to free housing and benefits etc, and his fellow Polish plumbers would vote for him. He might then become the Polish Plumber Prime Minister.

This is clearly a silly idea I have just had, and the comments about a Polish Plumber are tounge in cheek, and not intended to offend or start yet another stupid arguement. It merely proposes how the structure of this country could easily change.

I sit patiently, ready to be shot at. Bring it on!

Edited by Jimothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every now and then I recover a gem from my list of favourites.

http://www.americaneconomicalert.com/view_...sp?Prod_ID=1158

The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap

William R. Hawkins

Sunday, July 18, 2004

On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.

Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation, American manufacturing exports, which dropped by $131.6 billion (19.1 percent).

The combined effect of higher imports and lower exports was a trade deficit in manufactured goods that was a staggering $469.5 billion in 2003. Only someone completely blinded by ivory tower theory could fail to see how such a swing could harm the U.S. economy. But then what can be expected from someone who has argued that the true value of the World Trade Organization is not that it opens overseas markets to American exports (that support American jobs), but that it keeps the U.S. market open to foreign producers (who employ foreign workers).

More and more, defenders of the trade deficit are citing how cheap imports benefit consumers since they have clearly lost the argument about jobs. This is not, however, a new argument. Indeed, it goes back to the very first debates over trade policy in the 19th century. It was then called the cheap bread argument because bread was literally the main staple in working-class diets. The basic claim was that cheap imported grain was a substitute for higher wages, but the setting of the argument was even more ominous.

David Ricardo (1772-1823), an English banker and member of Parliament, is best known for the economic theory of comparative advantage in international trade. But he also authored the iron law of wages theory in 1817, which held that wages naturally tended towards a minimum level corresponding to the subsistence needs of the workers. The power of the labourer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of labourers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase. The natural price of labour, therefore, depends on the price of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the labourer and his family. With a rise in the price of food and necessaries, the natural price of labour will rise; with the fall in their price, the natural price of labour will fall.

In other words, workers need a certain amount of consumer goods to survive and raise the next generation of workers. They cannot expect to earn more than this subsistence level. It is in the interest of employers to keep the cost of living down, so that wages can also be kept low. As Ricardo noted, A rise of wages, from the circumstance of the labourer being more liberally rewarded, or from a difficulty of procuring the necessaries on which wages are expended, does not, except in some instances, produce the effect of raising price, but has a great effect in lowering profits.

The value of trade then is not to the worker, who cannot expect his living standards to rise above their natural low level, but to the employer and factory owner who make a profit from the difference between what is paid in wages and what is earned from the sale of products. There was no notion in Ricardo that workers would increase their real wages as their productivity increased. They would earn their keep but nothing more. Increased productivity was the result of capital investment in new technology, and the higher profits would go to the owners of these improved means of production. This is very much what has been seen today, as productivity and profits have been soaring, but real wages have been stagnant at best and falling in many industries.

In is thus not surprising that the first great free trade movement in England was that of the Anti-Corn Law League led by firebrand Richard Cobden in the decades following Ricardo s iron law of wages. The Corn Laws created a system of protectionism for British farmers. The Anti-Corn Law argument was that food prices would be lower if England opened itself up to foreign grain imports. And if food prices dropped, so could wages and British industry would be more competitive.

There were other arguments made as well. For example, it was said that foreigners needed to sell agricultural goods in England to earn the money needed to buy British manufactured goods. A modern version of this argument is now being used in support of the campaign to cut U.S. farm support programs and open the American market for agricultural imports from Latin America and elsewhere. The problem with the argument today is that the United States is already running a trade deficit that provides foreigners with more than enough money to buy American goods – they just are not buying.

The view that workers were merely a factor of production, just another commodity, with no more chance of improving their condition than does a ton of pig iron or a pair of boots, was a major factor in the rise of anti-capitalist movements of which Marxist socialism became the leading doctrine. The socialists did not add anything new to economic theory. They accepted the dismal science of classical economics, but rejected as unacceptable its consequences.

Ricardo held that like all other contracts, wages should be left to the fair and free competition of the market, and should never be controlled by the interference of the legislature. But it was this very interference that allowed the United States to escape the Ricardian trap. The great success story of America is the transformation of the working class into the middle class. Trade protectionism kept the demand for labor higher and the supply of labor lower than the natural order favored by the classical economists. The result was higher real incomes, as the creation of a mass market of affluent workers supported the advancement of industrial science and growing productivity. Unions and professionals were able to bargain for their share of the higher profits. America became the envy of the world. Higher incomes are always preferable to lower prices because they impart more control to the wage-earner over how his money will be spent, or saved.

Now, the return to prominence of classical theory in the service of transnational corporations has branded the achievements of American society as commercial liabilities, harming the competitiveness of American industry in the face of underdeveloped societies where Ricardo s iron law still rules and workers receive the barest subsistence. Ricardo is very clear about what happens when the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it. When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched: then poverty deprives them of those comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries. It is only after their privations have reduced their number, or the demand for labour has increased, that the market price of labour will rise to its natural price, and that the labourer will have the moderate comforts which the natural rate of wages will afford.

For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal. Today, the increase in the labor supply in the United States is not from domestic overpopulation, but from the mass surge of foreign populations into the global labor pool. The way to restore a favorable balance for the American middle class employee is to cut the foreign workers out of the U.S. market. Nations progress by improving their own means of production and boosting incomes, not from the consumption of cheap imported goods that boosts production somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the immigration debate, the crime debate and almost anything else has two purposes

(1) to distract from the economic blox they're trying to ignore

(2) to bring in ID cards with the support of the public.

Margaret Beckett's local labour group has had a huge number of people defest to Lib dems (mostly asian interestingly enough) - showing the way to alter policy is to be a grass roots support of the party that mostly fits your beliefs - and where necessary change the party not your beliefs.

This was about their iraq policy btw rather than immigration - but was interesting to see so many muslims "active" in party policitics.

ID cards will be sold as the answer to everything.

However they will only work if *EVERYONE* has to have one. Every single person in the UK - without which you can't buy anything and need to carry it at all time and to have a huge police force to do stop and see...

That way you'd know exactly who was in the country - tie the card to money - kill cash and you solve masses of crime and fraud problems.

It would be a horrific country to live in though and I wouldn't want to stay (I'm not entirely convinced this is the place to be anyway though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the immigration debate is just so the Government can claim it is at least looking at the situation. Of course the reality is they will do nothing at all, other than keep the floodgates open, but they can't be accused of totally ignoring it with this approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This generation better stop posing with their Bottles of BUD and waken up . Think of what generations have given you and get

out of these wine bars etc. Stop dreaming of that Golf GTI and earn it !! "Wealth is not given it is earned"

Stop being impressed by Posh and Becks!! these two have not any brain cells to rub together as its only the media thats made them. Government ploy to make you feel "wellffy Mate"

Edited by faloos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government have started this debate on immigration. John Reid's comments on needing a sensible debate about it were the starting gun.

But I'm confused, the figures make them look bad, very bad.

Why have they suddenly starting talking about this, now of all times?

Very very odd, I don't like it, what are they up to?

Maybe it's this: Beware.. BNP Link!!

Can't deny they've been well ahead of the game so far (and no, I'm not a member)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour are banking on people have short memories. They are hoping that people will forget who created the problem in the first place, whilst sweeping in and sorting it all out for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour are banking on people have short memories. They are hoping that people will forget who created the problem in the first place, whilst sweeping in and sorting it all out for us.

They will limit all the immigration to say 50000 a year (against their estimate of 13000) and try and fool the public that they have done a good job. Barstewards!! And for all the Sun readers they dont know what day it is anyway so job done !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secret Tenancy Agreement

The answers to this puzzle lies in a secret 26-page document – the Revised Tenancy Agreement April 2001 - produced by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, acting through the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Its very existence is supposed to be secret, Section 3 (p), on page 8 has this warning for people or companies thinking of making money out of housing asylum seekers:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/whistleblowers/wb_tenancyagreement.htm

How do you prove or disprove the existance of said document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the immigration debate, the crime debate and almost anything else has two purposes

(1) to distract from the economic blox they're trying to ignore

(2) to bring in ID cards with the support of the public.

Margaret Beckett's local labour group has had a huge number of people defest to Lib dems (mostly asian interestingly enough) - showing the way to alter policy is to be a grass roots support of the party that mostly fits your beliefs - and where necessary change the party not your beliefs.

This was about their iraq policy btw rather than immigration - but was interesting to see so many muslims "active" in party policitics.

ID cards will be sold as the answer to everything.

However they will only work if *EVERYONE* has to have one. Every single person in the UK - without which you can't buy anything and need to carry it at all time and to have a huge police force to do stop and see...

That way you'd know exactly who was in the country - tie the card to money - kill cash and you solve masses of crime and fraud problems.

It would be a horrific country to live in though and I wouldn't want to stay (I'm not entirely convinced this is the place to be anyway though)

You probably don't know that some 8% of British adults do not have a bank account because they can not prove who they are. If you're very poor and cannot afford 85 quid for a passport then you have no way of proving you are a British citizen. A friend of mine was denied a job because she had neither a passport not driving license. It's ironic that you have to leave the country (ie have a passport) in order to prove you are from this country. It should be a basic civil liberty that everyone born in this country has the right to prove who they are, to get a bank account and a job. ID CARDS NOW!!!!! (optional of course)

Edited by KingCash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every now and then I recover a gem from my list of favourites.

http://www.americaneconomicalert.com/view_...sp?Prod_ID=1158

The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap

William R. Hawkins

Sunday, July 18, 2004

On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.

Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation, American manufacturing exports, which dropped by $131.6 billion (19.1 percent).

The combined effect of higher imports and lower exports was a trade deficit in manufactured goods that was a staggering $469.5 billion in 2003. Only someone completely blinded by ivory tower theory could fail to see how such a swing could harm the U.S. economy. But then what can be expected from someone who has argued that the true value of the World Trade Organization is not that it opens overseas markets to American exports (that support American jobs), but that it keeps the U.S. market open to foreign producers (who employ foreign workers).

More and more, defenders of the trade deficit are citing how cheap imports benefit consumers since they have clearly lost the argument about jobs. This is not, however, a new argument. Indeed, it goes back to the very first debates over trade policy in the 19th century. It was then called the cheap bread argument because bread was literally the main staple in working-class diets. The basic claim was that cheap imported grain was a substitute for higher wages, but the setting of the argument was even more ominous.

David Ricardo (1772-1823), an English banker and member of Parliament, is best known for the economic theory of comparative advantage in international trade. But he also authored the iron law of wages theory in 1817, which held that wages naturally tended towards a minimum level corresponding to the subsistence needs of the workers. The power of the labourer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of labourers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase. The natural price of labour, therefore, depends on the price of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the labourer and his family. With a rise in the price of food and necessaries, the natural price of labour will rise; with the fall in their price, the natural price of labour will fall.

In other words, workers need a certain amount of consumer goods to survive and raise the next generation of workers. They cannot expect to earn more than this subsistence level. It is in the interest of employers to keep the cost of living down, so that wages can also be kept low. As Ricardo noted, A rise of wages, from the circumstance of the labourer being more liberally rewarded, or from a difficulty of procuring the necessaries on which wages are expended, does not, except in some instances, produce the effect of raising price, but has a great effect in lowering profits.

The value of trade then is not to the worker, who cannot expect his living standards to rise above their natural low level, but to the employer and factory owner who make a profit from the difference between what is paid in wages and what is earned from the sale of products. There was no notion in Ricardo that workers would increase their real wages as their productivity increased. They would earn their keep but nothing more. Increased productivity was the result of capital investment in new technology, and the higher profits would go to the owners of these improved means of production. This is very much what has been seen today, as productivity and profits have been soaring, but real wages have been stagnant at best and falling in many industries.

In is thus not surprising that the first great free trade movement in England was that of the Anti-Corn Law League led by firebrand Richard Cobden in the decades following Ricardo s iron law of wages. The Corn Laws created a system of protectionism for British farmers. The Anti-Corn Law argument was that food prices would be lower if England opened itself up to foreign grain imports. And if food prices dropped, so could wages and British industry would be more competitive.

There were other arguments made as well. For example, it was said that foreigners needed to sell agricultural goods in England to earn the money needed to buy British manufactured goods. A modern version of this argument is now being used in support of the campaign to cut U.S. farm support programs and open the American market for agricultural imports from Latin America and elsewhere. The problem with the argument today is that the United States is already running a trade deficit that provides foreigners with more than enough money to buy American goods – they just are not buying.

The view that workers were merely a factor of production, just another commodity, with no more chance of improving their condition than does a ton of pig iron or a pair of boots, was a major factor in the rise of anti-capitalist movements of which Marxist socialism became the leading doctrine. The socialists did not add anything new to economic theory. They accepted the dismal science of classical economics, but rejected as unacceptable its consequences.

Ricardo held that like all other contracts, wages should be left to the fair and free competition of the market, and should never be controlled by the interference of the legislature. But it was this very interference that allowed the United States to escape the Ricardian trap. The great success story of America is the transformation of the working class into the middle class. Trade protectionism kept the demand for labor higher and the supply of labor lower than the natural order favored by the classical economists. The result was higher real incomes, as the creation of a mass market of affluent workers supported the advancement of industrial science and growing productivity. Unions and professionals were able to bargain for their share of the higher profits. America became the envy of the world. Higher incomes are always preferable to lower prices because they impart more control to the wage-earner over how his money will be spent, or saved.

Now, the return to prominence of classical theory in the service of transnational corporations has branded the achievements of American society as commercial liabilities, harming the competitiveness of American industry in the face of underdeveloped societies where Ricardo s iron law still rules and workers receive the barest subsistence. Ricardo is very clear about what happens when the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it. When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched: then poverty deprives them of those comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries. It is only after their privations have reduced their number, or the demand for labour has increased, that the market price of labour will rise to its natural price, and that the labourer will have the moderate comforts which the natural rate of wages will afford.

For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal. Today, the increase in the labor supply in the United States is not from domestic overpopulation, but from the mass surge of foreign populations into the global labor pool. The way to restore a favorable balance for the American middle class employee is to cut the foreign workers out of the U.S. market. Nations progress by improving their own means of production and boosting incomes, not from the consumption of cheap imported goods that boosts production somewhere else.

Wow! Very rarely do you read something that changes your outlook on life so profoundly. I've always had a slight problem with this "immigrants mean lower wages which is good for you" argument because I've always thought it would create a viscous cycle that would never end until we were back in the middle ages. Now I understand why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.