What makes the Germans so successful?

[joeninety]

If you want to take this further, this link -albeit from 1998- justifies Proposition 13 as a tax break that encouraged economic growth:
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...en-now-forever

This link, on the other hand, argues that illegal immigrants have been part of the economic success of Texas, and claims legalizing their status would benefit the USA:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/have-...-to-its-knees/

I don't see how problems in a state as complex as California can be reduced to illegal immigration; it is likely that state government and the costs of its polcies in education, and particularly prisons, are part of the problem. This third link on Folsom Prison makes chilling reading when you calculate the cost of the Three Strikes And You're Out policy. You have to task yourself if shoplifting really is worth a life sentence.
http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843...s-prison-blues

Cheers for the articles Stavros they make for some interesting reading, I have seen a lot of similar stuff out their about Immigrants adding value to societies and helping them to grow, I mean you only have to look at colonialism and the slave trade which was basically, the ruthless forced form of immagration and as was the case with the slave trade people being kidnapped and dragged to said foreign country, then made to work massively long hours for pittance or in real terms for enough food and water to keep them working, but at the end of all that misery and suffering hey presto you get all the tough shitty labourious jobs done and a gleaming new country that works to boot.

The only differences between the slaves of yesterday and the slaves sorry I mean Immigrants of today is that one lot were dragged over here kicking and screaming and paid in food and water while the other lot (through lack of options partly due to American geo political interference) come for meagre wages (i.e they are wage slaves) due the hopelessness of their situation and in return are almost as royally exploited as the previous slaves before them, they also have the added burden of the cleverdicks at the top laying media brainwash blame on them, so said cleverdicks in effect create a win win in that they get the labour and the votes when it comes to polling time as they blame their fuck ups (whilst lining theirs and their friends greedy pockets) on the easy targets and promising that they will clean the "Immigrant problem" up and they continue to perpetuate the Bs and the voters continue to be ignorant and never learn.

Education in society and effectual rehabilitation in prisons is key to solving a lot of problems as shown in that "Folsom prison" before and after link but at the end of the day prison and crime is its own industry, solve most of that then what happens to the Police, Judges, Wardens, Prison guards, attorneys, lawyers, solicitors, barrister, clerks, admin teams, human resources people, business and finance peoples and all other people associated within the crime industry. Solve crime and then you put all of these people out of a job where do they go??? Also having crime creates certain fear factors in society and it can then be used to bring in all sorts of draconian measures which are used to enslave us all to varying degrees depending upon whereabouts on the ladder of society we are.

Its all fixed and its all dileberate, it affects the 95% majority in negative ways but for those that run it, it works to their benefit and is perfectly designed for them, the real power and a fair and just society could be in the hands of the majority but divided as we stand we will never come to realise it.

[joeninety]

And has anybody here mentioned US economic aid in the postwar years which poured into germany to help rebuild it's economy? Millions of US dollars between 1948 and the end of 1951.

Not sure about Germany but as was the case with the UK the money that flowed to us from America was not aid it was a begged loan and the debt repayment on that loan was so massive that the Uk only finished paying it off around a few years ago, so I have never understood this love America thing as they shafted the Uk when it was at its weakest.

Don't get me wrong it is not American Joe public I am griping about it is the ruthless greedy establishment at the top that I cannot stand.

I figure any loans America was handing out around that time probably had massive loan repayment profits attached to them, plus trading perks and do us favours perks.

[joeninety]

And the UK, and Italy, and Greece...but in addition to the high volume of US capital that was crucial to economic growth in Europe after 1945, European capital was instrumental in the economic growth of the USA before and after 1945...why the subsequent experience of economic life should be so different must be due to non-economic factors, such as politics. Which is why it was absurd of onmyknees to use one aspect of the economy in California to explain the whole.

Their are lots of factors to explain the differences in economic life one of which is that outstanding loans (incoming collateral) has dried up whilst and with the emergence of China their is less of a reliance on America as the central hub which it once was.

Add to this American expenditure going through the roof on wars although not a problem if you sit at the top as you own most of the oil, gas, and weapons companies and all your friends have shares in said companies so you all stand to make a killing literally whilst your citizens are burdened with debt.

Put into the mix the massive credit debt built up with China and the fact that in reality China now needs to be kept afloat or else this whole bubble will burst then you will see some of the factors influencing todays economic landscape.

Also add the flaw that those at the very top hoard accumalated wealth and do not let it flow back into the economies, plus the fact that world markets are not really tangible and can be manipulated via media brainwash as a lot of it is based around human psychology so when these tools are used in conjunction things can look be made to look better or worse than they really are.

These are some of the reasons why the world looks the way it does but the reality is how bad or good is it really when it can be so easily distorted think smoke and mirrors.

Capitalism is not sustainable in order for something to keep growing, then that must mean in order for that growth somewhere down the chain eventually losses are going to occur and growth is eventually going to stop and will turn into loss, shrinkage and eventual collapse is it actually happening or really as bad as being portrayed who knows.

[Stavros]

Joe you are right about the complexities of the loan that Gordon Brown paid off in 2006, but the UK didn't really have much choice in 1947, and if you were to factor in the investment capital that flowed from the UK to the US you could say that apart from the lawyers both sides got a good deal -a better deal than the debt Haiti had to pay to France for over 100 years for example. I am not sure about your other comments, for example US firms own less than 5% of the world's oil and gas, 90% of which is owned by state owned oil companies in the Middle East and Latin America; the question how long capitalism can last is an intriguing one, I have read that there has been a renewed interest in the works of Karl Marx since 2008, which is odd in a way because so many of the conditions in which capitalism operates have changed beyond anything he could imagine. Capitalism has an ability to innovate its way out of crises, although I think modern technology relies less on manual labour and that is where the real challenges are, globally.

[natina]

ANCHOR BABIES
County’s Monthly Welfare Tab for Illegal Aliens $52 Million

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/...ns-52-million/

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

If you want to take this further, this link -albeit from 1998- justifies Proposition 13 as a tax break that encouraged economic growth:
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...en-now-forever

This link, on the other hand, argues that illegal immigrants have been part of the economic success of Texas, and claims legalizing their status would benefit the USA:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/have-...-to-its-knees/

I don't see how problems in a state as complex as California can be reduced to illegal immigration; it is likely that state government and the costs of its polcies in education, and particularly prisons, are part of the problem. This third link on Folsom Prison makes chilling reading when you calculate the cost of the Three Strikes And You're Out policy. You have to task yourself if shoplifting really is worth a life sentence.
http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843...s-prison-blues

[natina]

$22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children


County’s Monthly Welfare Tab for Illegal Aliens $52 Million/month

As the mainstream media focuses on a study that reveals a sharp decline in the nation’s illegal immigrant population, monthly welfare payments to children of undocumented aliens increased to $52 million in one U.S. county alone.

The hoopla surrounding last week’s news that the annual flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. dropped by two-thirds in the past decade overlooked an important matter; the cost of educating, incarcerating and medically treating illegal aliens hasn’t decreased along with it, but rather skyrocketed to the tune of tens of billions of dollars annually.

Those figures don’t even include the extra millions that local municipalities dish out on welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, commonly known as anchor babies. In Los Angeles County alone that figure increased by nearly $4 million in the last year, sticking taxpayers with a whopping $52 million tab to provide illegal immigrants’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare benefits for just one month.


About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from L.A. County’s Department of Social Services. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1062069/
http://www.theamericanresistance.com...or_babies.html

[natina]

8 out of the 12 baby's born in the USA or born to illegal

laws now or focusing on having no automatic citizen ship for kids born to parents of illegals

http://www.theamericanresistance.com...or_babies.html



http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1062069/


Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth certificates

One of the politicians behind Arizona's controversial immigration law has called for children born to non-US citizens to be barred from getting American birth certificates.

Arizona has been praised and criticized for cracking down on illegal immigration, prompting other states to consider similar bills and energizing immigration groups.

The state passed a bill that allows law enforcement to ask for proof of citizenship from a person they believe could be illegally in the country.

So it seems the state will continue in the forefront of the debate as the same man who sponsored the first legislation is now pushing to expand it. Republican state Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.

Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, any child born in the country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their parents' legal status.

"I want to bring a little common sense and integrity back," he told the Daily Telegraph. "It's illegal to enter the United States and yet we are going to create the greatest inducement to breaking our law, and entering illegally, and that's making your baby a citizen."
+24 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tificates.html

[natina]

ANCHOR BABIES

http://www.americanpatrol.com/09-FEA...OPULATION4.jpg



Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."

America's going non-white! It's been long reported that the U.S. is projected to be minority-majority by 2042. Now researchers from Cornell and the University of New Hampshire say, "for America's children and youth, that future is here already": In the Census year that ended in July of 2008, 48 percent of the children born in the U.S.A. were from minority-group parents.
The growth is mainly among Hispanic parents. Between 2000 and 2008, says the report by Professors Kenneth Johnson and Daniel Lichter, Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."

Also, while the nation's African-American population is still "concentrated disproportionately in the largest and oldest US central cities," Hispanics are spreading to the hinterlands; the report says the Hispanic population "is dispersing rapidly -- though selectively -- from traditional gateway cities in the Southwest," not only to surrounding suburbs, but also "rapidly in many rural parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia."

Professors Johnson and Lichter suggest the growth is due to an influx of fertile Hispanic women. They're having an average of 2.99 babies apiece, while white women are having 1.87.

Please show this report to an old bigot near you. Then play 'em some Black Flag!




http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...nic_kids_4.php




http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archi

[joeninety]

Joe you are right about the complexities of the loan that Gordon Brown paid off in 2006, but the UK didn't really have much choice in 1947, and if you were to factor in the investment capital that flowed from the UK to the US you could say that apart from the lawyers both sides got a good deal -a better deal than the debt Haiti had to pay to France for over 100 years for example. I am not sure about your other comments, for example US firms own less than 5% of the world's oil and gas, 90% of which is owned by state owned oil companies in the Middle East and Latin America; the question how long capitalism can last is an intriguing one, I have read that there has been a renewed interest in the works of Karl Marx since 2008, which is odd in a way because so many of the conditions in which capitalism operates have changed beyond anything he could imagine. Capitalism has an ability to innovate its way out of crises, although I think modern technology relies less on manual labour and that is where the real challenges are, globally.

Yes very true the Uk had no choice in asking for the loan but it was the way the yanks went about things that gets me, initially they refused to help saying it was in effect beyond their means to do so, then Britain had to go back for a second time with begging bowl in hand pleading then I think it was Henry kissinger saw an opportunity to exploit Britain and convinced Yanks to do the deal in return that Britain agreed to some very unfavourable terms one of which was the convertibility of Sterling which ended up being considerable devalued,

America loves to enslave countries through debt so yes on paper US firms may own low percentage stakes in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries but they are very clever about who really owns that oil, take Iraq for instance as soon as that war ensued what was the first thing they did, that's right they secured the oil refineries and pipelines, next when Saddam was ousted they said they had to take control of the production and sale of the oil but that all the proceeds would go back to Iraq, ok you may think fair enough until you realise that America was solely in charge of who that oil was sold to and how much it sold the oil for, meaning America sold oil to America at a knock down price and elitists profited massively.

Another example of who really owns anything is look at the current situation with Iran now I think they are the 9th largest supplier of oil yet America has managed to put sanctions on that country and stop a lot of its supplies being sold. Luckily for Iran China and India are happy to be their new big customers so how much of an effect that tactic will have is negligible but if Iran hadn't been in the shadow of the ascending dragon then things would have been very different and they would of ended up being another Iraq.

There are countless other examples of American indirectly owning oil but it is a long winded story, so guess what I am saying is America may not own the majority shares on paper in these oil companies, but in reality they do own a lot of this oil as they control the sales or not of it.

Finally you raise an interesting point about Capitalism being able to innovate its way out of a crises and technology taking over but as you say what about the manual labour force as they get displaced where do they go, as populations get bigger but less of a workforce is needed this gulf is only going to get bigger add to that, that through modern medicine mortality rates are being lowered, plus their are only finite resources on this planet but Capitalism insists on year on year growth which is illogical then you can see how this will have dire consequences for us as a species unless radical changes start to happen and these may not be so good for the exisiting populas.

[broncofan]

Not sure about Germany but as was the case with the UK the money that flowed to us from America was not aid it was a begged loan and the debt repayment on that loan was so massive that the Uk only finished paying it off around a few years ago, so I have never understood this love America thing as they shafted the Uk when it was at its weakest.

Don't get me wrong it is not American Joe public I am griping about it is the ruthless greedy establishment at the top that I cannot stand.

I figure any loans America was handing out around that time probably had massive loan repayment profits attached to them, plus trading perks and do us favours perks.

That tends to be how lending takes place. The lender makes money and the person accepting the loans borrows because they need the money and are willing to repay the interest. While someone on a revolving short-term loan may claim usury and have a legitimate case, sovereign debt tends to be very different as you have sophisticated borrowers. If Britain borrowed and the terms weren't very attractive it must have been because they could not get better terms elsewhere???