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.
*sigh* Well, at least you can read. But you need to work a bit more on reading comprehension.
Well, comprehend this:
Money being sent out of the country is not being returned to the economy in the form of purchases from local businesses, local businesses lose money, slowly, steadily. When that happens they usually have to terminate employees, who then have to find another job, or close the business altogether, resulting in a loss of jobs, loss of money, loss of spending power, loss of means to pay bills or buy food for the people let go, loss of tax revenue for their cities or counties...on and on.
If someone has a bucket with a tiny hole in it they may not notice the leak immediately, but in time that bucket is going to be empty.
I realize that my little post will not satiate the needs of your troll-like appetite. And for your little dig at me let me just reiterate; illogic is incomprehensible to most folks.
I don't have disdain for money just because I point out that remittances don't injure our economy.
Yes, you do. Calling money 'paper with green printing' is most definitely disdainful. In essence, you are calling money valueless and trivial. I think you may want to go back to the barter system, is that it? Good luck, amigo.
Money being sent out of the country is not being returned to the economy in the form of purchases from local businesses, local businesses lose money, slowly, steadily. When that happens they usually have to terminate employees, who then have to find another job, or close the business altogether, resulting in a loss of jobs, loss of money, loss of spending power, loss of means to pay bills or buy food for the people let go, loss of tax revenue for their cities or counties...on and on.
Yes, this is true (the bolded part.) But our economy is not in the crapper because of remittances. Rather than once again repeat what I said above, I ask that you read some of the post above on the previous page of this thread. Read it slowly and carefully, and ask for help if you don't understand any of the words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
If someone has a bucket with a tiny hole in it they may not notice the leak immediately, but in time that bucket is going to be empty.
Okay, fine. I will play along with your simplistic metaphor. In this situation there is another party--our gov't--monitoring the water level in the bucket (money supply), and taking measures to increase/decrease it as is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
I realize that my little post will not satiate the needs of your troll-like appetite. And for your little dig at me let me just reiterate; illogic is incomprehensible to most folks.
Just because someone has a different view than you does not make them a troll. Do you realize this?
And I agree with you that illogic is incomprehensible to most folks. I am finding out from you that logic is incomprehensible to some folks.
Okay, fine. I will play along with your simplistic metaphor. In this situation there is another party--our gov't--monitoring the water level in the bucket (money supply), and taking measures to increase/decrease it as is needed.
The unlimited money supply is going to be a big problem - and soon. The USA has made itself the mint of the world but it's not sustainable. Sending out unlimited supplies of dollars will make them worthless.
We already cannot pay up the trade deficits and when the countries like China, Mexico, India come to cash in those dollars that are based on nothing, then what?
American consumerism is not able to prop up most of the world. Jobless Americans with no access to the dollar supply certainly cannot keep up the spending spree that kept it all going in recent years.
If the illegals were to meet all of their financial obligations first maybe sending money out would stimulate the mexican economy and maybe ours BUT YOU SEE the illegals cant afford to send the money out yet they do and then we pay for what they need..Free schools . health care with no ID accountability. free food for their babys and who knows what else. You got to pay your bills before you start a savings account,,duh!
Originally Posted by monkey cabal
In this situation there is another party--our gov't--monitoring the water level in the bucket (money supply), and taking measures to increase/decrease it as is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
The unlimited money supply is going to be a big problem - and soon. The USA has made itself the mint of the world but it's not sustainable. Sending out unlimited supplies of dollars will make them worthless.
True. But only if the dollars come back to America. Remittances are different than loans. The dollars sent overseas as remittances are used as a store of value, generally because the countries where they go have weak currency systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
We already cannot pay up the trade deficits and when the countries like China, Mexico, India come to cash in those dollars that are based on nothing, then what?
American consumerism is not able to prop up most of the world. Jobless Americans with no access to the dollar supply certainly cannot keep up the spending spree that kept it all going in recent years.
Apples and oranges. Our unemployment rate, and the fiscal deficit and trade deficit caused by American consumerism are HUGE problems. But these are different topics than our discussion of how remittances are good for America.
If the illegals were to meet all of their financial obligations first maybe sending money out would stimulate the mexican economy and maybe ours BUT YOU SEE the illegals cant afford to send the money out yet they do and then we pay for what they need..Free schools . health care with no ID accountability. free food for their babys and who knows what else. You got to pay your bills before you start a savings account,,duh!
This is a bit off topic. But I agree with you that it would help our economy if illegals would pay taxes and pay their obligations. Even so, this doesn't change the fact that remittances are good for America. That is, unless you are saying that it would be better if the remittance money was instead used to pay the financial obligations of illegals. If that is what you are saying, then I agree wholeheartedly.
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.
Malamute, I had not read this post yet when I responded to some other posts below it. I agree with most of what you say, even though much of it is beyond the narrow scope of whether remittances are good or bad for the U.S. You have a very insightful and intelligent perspective on these matters. Thanks for the great post.
Malamute, I had not read this post yet when I responded to some other posts below it. I agree with most of what you say, even though much of it is beyond the narrow scope of whether remittances are good or bad for the U.S. You have a very insightful and intelligent perspective on these matters. Thanks for the great post.
If you are only concerned about the narrow scope of yes/no then it is a solid NO on remittances. If you want reasons why then it falls out of scope, which is it?
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.
