Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fine by me. My premise is that Remittances are Good for America!! Who cares what Godforsaken country those pieces of paper are being sent to--as long as they don't come back to U.S. soil.
You seem to think that the hole dug by the illegal Mexican is worth more than the $10 paid by the criminal employer to the illegal Mexican for digging the hole.
No. But I think the $10 worth of labor to get the $10 bill is worth more than the piece of paper that exits our country. The physical $10 bill--the piece of paper--is simply a store of value. Who cares if it is exchanged again within our borders or is mailed across the Rio Grande.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer
More amateurish maxist theory but probably just pushing your agenda.
My only agenda is to reduce ignorance. Read and learn. (btw, what is a "maxist" theory. Does it stem from a maxi-pad postulate?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer
A dug hole has little value to a criminal employer until the criminal employer has some way to profit from the dug hole. These profits made by the criminal employer from the dug hole enable the criminal employer to conduct business which then profits other businesses. So you agree on how the hole dug by the illegal Mexican eventually helps the economy but refuse to acknowledge, for your agenda, how that $10 earned by the illegal Mexican if spent locally could also pass through many hands to greatly multiply the effect on the economy of that $10.
Sure, if the $10 stays in the U.S.--let's say it is used to purchase two tacos and a sixer of Tecate--then it circulates around and is good for our economy. But if it is mailed home to a small village in Chihuahua it does not harm our economy. We still get the $10 worth of labor--the hole that was dug. And our nation only suffers the loss of a piece of paper used as a store of value. So what? On the other hand, it would be worse if Pedro had instead bought $10 worth of tacos and beer, put them in the trunk of his '74 chevy Impala low rider and driven across the border. Then our economy would be out $10 worth of tangible goods (tacos and beer) instead of merely losing a piece of paper with a green picture of Alexander Hamilton. ¿Comprende
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer
The total remittances from all illegal aliens is about 200 billion a year. That's 200 billion that doesn't get circulated in the local enocomy which would greatly magnify the effects of 200 billion.
I think it's more like $45 billion per year. But I could be mistaken. Either way, the value of the pieces of paper leaving our border is worth around 1% the face value of the bills--give or take. It is okay that the paper money flows out, as long as it doesn't come back. (Or at least doesn't return before some serious inflation occurs.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer
I say that we impose a 40% tax on remittances.
BRILLIANT! You can be in charge of collecting it!
All this talk of tacos and Tecate makes me hungry. And thirsty!! I think I'll tool down to Ralphs in my '74 chevy Impala low rider and grab a sixer. Then park it on my front yard and have a little fiesta. Have a good weekend!
No. But I think the $10 worth of labor to get the $10 bill is worth more than the piece of paper that exits our country. The physical $10 bill--the piece of paper--is simply a store of value. Who cares if it is exchanged again within our borders or is mailed across the Rio Grande.
I see. The hole that the illegal Mexican dug for the criminal employer is worth more than the $10 piece of paper in Marxist theory?
Quote:
My only agenda is to reduce ignorance. Read and learn. (btw, what is a "maxist" theory. Does it stem from a maxi-pad postulate?)
Your only agenda is to clearly downplay the harm to the economy caused by remittances. Well, marxist theory can stem from a maxi-pad postulate if you want it to.
Quote:
Sure, if the $10 stays in the U.S.--let's say it is used to purchase two tacos and a sixer of Tecate--then it circulates around and is good for our economy. But if it is mailed home to a small village in Chihuahua it does not harm our economy. We still get the $10 worth of labor--the hole that was dug. And our nation only suffers the loss of a piece of paper used as a store of value. So what? On the other hand, it would be worse if Pedro had instead bought $10 worth of tacos and beer, put them in the trunk of his '74 chevy Impala low rider and driven across the border. Then our economy would be out $10 worth of tangible goods (tacos and beer) instead of merely losing a piece of paper with a green picture of Alexander Hamilton. ¿Comprende
So it's good for our economy if that $10 circulates around and is used to purchase goods and services but is not bad for the economy if it doesn't? Huh?
Quote:
I think it's more like $45 billion per year. But I could be mistaken. Either way, the value of the pieces of paper leaving our border is worth around 1% the face value of the bills--give or take. It is okay that the paper money flows out, as long as it doesn't come back. (Or at least doesn't return before some serious inflation occurs.)
Illegal Mexicans are sending $45 billion back to Mexico. The remittances from the rest of the illegals, ie illegal asians etc, totals about 200 billion.
Quote:
BRILLIANT! You can be in charge of collecting it!
At the very least any money wired outside the country by an an illegal by a bank should be taxed.
I see. The hole that the illegal Mexican dug for the criminal employer is worth more than the $10 piece of paper in Marxist theory?
No. The hole is worth $10. The $10 bill is a store of value that can be used to transfer the worth of the hole ($10) to some other goods or services--like a couple of tacos and a sixer of Tecate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer
So it's good for our economy if that $10 circulates around and is used to purchase goods and services but is not bad for the economy if it doesn't? Huh?
The paper $10 bill itself is not worth $10. It is only a store of value. You would not give somebody a bushel of apples (or $10 worth) for a paper $10 bill if you did not think you could turn around and buy something else with the paper $10 bill. The $10 bill itself is just a worthless piece of paper unless it can be used to buy something else. If it is not used as a store of value it is not good for much.
When an illegal alien mails a $10 bill back home he is only removing the store of value—that is, the piece of paper—from our economy. He does NOT remove $10 of value from our economy. We get to keep the hole, the fruits of his labor from earning the $10 piece of paper. Our gov’t carefully regulates the supply of money in the U.S. So it’s not like we are going to run out of paper money. I say let illegals send all the paper money home that they can get their hands on (by working, of course). It is good for the U.S.
You were correct above when you said it's good for our economy when the $10 circulates around and is used to purchase goods and services. But I was correct when I said that it’s not bad for the economy when illegals send remittances back home. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer
At the very least any money wired outside the country by an an illegal by a bank should be taxed.
Sure. Sounds good to me. I don't think wire transfer remittances are much different than carrying a grocery bag full of $20 bills across the border. They are not harmful to our economy. But taxing the wire transfers would help, in a small way, to reduce our gov't's deficits.
Originally Posted by monkey cabal
Sure, illegals are a drain on our school systems. But this thread is about remittances. And what a good thing they are for our economy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Yes, your education is a perfect case, of how illegals drain our public schools.
It is a ripple effect, that has a big part of an uneducated failing economy.
Were you intoxicated when you wrote this? What does not education, or lack of education, have to do with anything? It makes no sense whatsoever.
When a $10 bill leaves our border we lose a scrap of paper with green ink on it. But the benefit of the hour it took the illegal alien to earn that dollar stays within our borders. Does it not?
So can that benefit be passed around to profit others down the line like money can?
Hey, if you have such disdain for your paper with green ink, send it all to me. I don't know how you're going to buy your beer and tacos, though. Hm, I guess that green paper does come in handy sometimes.
This is the most hairbrained thread I've ever read!
So can that benefit be passed around to profit others down the line like money can?
Here is a more straightforward explanation from a later post, above. I hope it helps you:
Quote:
The paper $10 bill itself is not worth $10. It is only a store of value. You would not give somebody a bushel of apples (or $10 worth) for a paper $10 bill if you did not think you could turn around and buy something else with the paper $10 bill. The $10 bill itself is just a worthless piece of paper unless it can be used to buy something else. If it is not used as a store of value it is not good for much.
When an illegal alien mails a $10 bill back home he is only removing the store of value—that is, the piece of paper—from our economy. He does NOT remove $10 of value from our economy. We get to keep the hole, the fruits of his labor from earning the $10 piece of paper. Our gov’t carefully regulates the supply of money in the U.S. So it’s not like we are going to run out of paper money. I say let illegals send all the paper money home that they can get their hands on (by working, of course). It is good for the U.S.
You were correct above when you said it's good for our economy when the $10 circulates around and is used to purchase goods and services. But I was correct when I said that it’s not bad for the economy when illegals send remittances back home. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
Hey, if you have such disdain for your paper with green ink, send it all to me. I don't know how you're going to buy your beer and tacos, though. Hm, I guess that green paper does come in handy sometimes.
I don't have disdain for money just because I point out that remittances don't injure our economy. I am simply trying to reduce the net ignorance in our great country by explaining this concept. Kind of like performing a public service. Or charity work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
This is the most hairbrained thread I've ever read!
*sigh* Well, at least you can read. But you need to work a bit more on reading comprehension.
there is a reason franced limits the currency going out of the country. we want people to spend here, they dont. they take our jobs they take our money they drain our resources. why do we allow it? because we are lazy and dont wana rake our leaves and clean our own pool. americans want a slave class. when rome fell 1 in 3 was a slave.
As long as the bribe money and drug cartel money stays outside the U.S., who cares? It would only be bad for our economy if it made its way back to the U.S.
Sure these things are wrong. But in this thread we are only talking about how good remittances are for our economy. There are a hundred other threads to discuss these other aspects of illegal immigration.
I think your view is very very shortsighted but that's the way most of the pro-massive illegal immigration view is.
It's all about quick easy profits. Quick easy profits both for the sending nations and for the employers of illegals.
It's bad because it makes too many countries dependent on the USA economy. Too many are living off the American consumer and a dollar that will crash because of all of this.
Sure the government can go on printing dollars like they're going out of style to replace the billions of dollars leaving the USA economy - and you're right because if they didn't, inflation would be a terrible problem. The government can print welfare checks, food stamps, housing assistance both for the unemployed Americans and the underpaid illegals having many children to get more dollars into their household.
Those countries relying on remittances aren't doing much to build their own economies, improve their own infrastructures. Sending their youth and very fertile to the USA removes them as a problem but also as a solution, it doesn't solve a single problem in the sending country. It's all about cheap labor, unskilled labor. Instead of trying to improve a standard of living by improving the way people live, providing education - everything now is about remittances and that will lead to growing instability.
You don't solve someone else's problems by doing everything for them and allowing them to dump their problems on you. Trying to do everything for everybody is only going to bring down everyone ultimately. We would be better off if Mexico built itself up, if it's people stayed there and worked to improve Mexico, build a strong economy there instead of such a large chunk resorting to parasitism.
And it's a two-way parasitism. The USA is living off the cheap labor of Mexico too - and allowing far too many people here to remain jobless forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
