The GOP is poised for a historic loss

...

If a capitalist shithole is sitting right next to you, like most of the world's population is right now? Then you either institute protectionist/fair trade policies, or your socialist dreams are shredded by a race to the bottom.

No, that's capitalism. Do you think I want a market or something?

when will this meme die
guess who was projected to win muh swing states in 2008?

If your borders are freely open to immigration/trade, and world socialist revolution isn't totally complete, you are a de-facto capitalist nation.

Why?

Because your lack of sovereign boundaries allows 3rd-world capitalist market forces into your economy, where arbitrage against their lower quality of life will overwhelm you.

Fair enough.

Movement of workers and movement of capital are not interchangeable. One gives power to the workers and the other depletes it.

Workers are a form of capital. If the surplus army of labor grows uncontrollably, the value of labor is destroyed, and the power of employers against employees is strengthened.

Immigration does not increase the number of workers.

This is how I know you don't know shit about economics

You seem to be operating under the delusion that, given the choice between few applicants who demand higher compensation or conditions, and infinite applicants who will accept any compensation or conditions, employers will magically employ the former.

No.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that immigrations somehow increases the size of the global proletariat.

It isn't a profit motive. There is no market and the employer isn't a capitalist, no matter who he hires he gets the same compensation for his work.

The abolition of borders is a necessary part of a socialist revolution. The destruction of the concept of a nation is a goal in of itself.

Not to mention the huge benefit it will give to the working class of the world to be able to freely immigrate away from their shithole nations.

It's Economics 101 that population growth is a good thing for an economy. The fact that you treat populations growth as an economic negative (against essentially all evidence) reveals your intentions.

wew lad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_results_of_migration#Impact_on_the_migrants_and_global_poverty

The global proletariat as a unified body doesn't exist, not while legal conditions are so radically different around the world.

Leaving aside the practical impossibility of fixing 3rd-world poverty by evacuating the 3rd world, and the laws-of-thermodynamics-level impossibility of perpetual growth, the only effect of importing 3rd-worlders en masse would be to lower the 1st-world to 3rd-world levels. Nothing would change in the 3rd-world.

The only possible way to help the 3rd-world is to fix their countries, not to destroy ours.

There are many possible vectors for arbitrage. Even for the same supposed compensation, people can work more hours, more jobs, work worse assignments, live under inferior conditions, spend less on consumer goods, or submit to other expenses like reparations.

If you allow large numbers of more desperate people into your economy, the balance of power will be distorted.

what about >m-muh niggers and low iq ?

Did you know the US is wealthier than Europe, but median Americans are poorer?

In socialism people would be assigned a job, and no one is going to be working as much as they are now. I advocate for a centrally planned economy, do you have any examples of this happening in say, the Soviet Union?

American-Africans (the recent immigrants group, as distinct from African-American slave descendants) are actually a "model minority" like Asians that display higher IQ and achievement levels than most Americans:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States

You do know those studies have been conducted mostly by libertarian-leaning economists (i.e. the high priests of capitalism), right?

And I'm guessing a good percentage of those gains will derive from First World employers fortuitously having their labour costs in freefall thanks to abundant Third World labour

There is an enormous amount of research that contradicts this. Once again, this is how I know your are arguing from a purely ideological standpoint not based on real-world observation.

The global proletariat exists and the goal is to improve their quality of life. You can't just wave them away because they are not "unified" enough for you to consider them.

the gop has been running on vapors for years now

the only reason they have the clout they do now is because before the 2010 midterm elections the R party in many states was given control over redrawing the voting districts and swept into office around the country, to the almost universal exclusion of democrats, because they literally got to decide which votes counted and how. they love to paint this as some sort of popular reaction against THE TYRANNY OF KING BARACK ''THE ISLAMIC ATTACK" OBOMBA considering the first two years of his presidency the democrats had the majority, but really they just cheated their way into governmental control, then spent the rest of their time fixing the laws to disenfranchise even more voters from demographics that typically vote democrat–young people, non-whites, students, etc

so not only were they unpopular to begin with, but they spent the last six years alienating all the key growing demographics and making themselves the party of dysfunction

Conducted by porky economists with the interests of business owners, CEOs, executives, property developers, landlords in mind. Any benefits that flow to labour are purely coincidental.

Wasn't the USSR a viciously tyrannical shithole with draconian controls on internal movement, not to mention an exploitative colonial empire that ruthlessly siphoned labor/resources/capital from some corners while bloating others with their stolen largesse?

Like that wikipedia link you posted, that cooed smugly about the plunder of 1st-world economies by increasing the size of their workforces, but failed to note that increases in employee earnings would MASSIVELY fail to keep up with increases in population, or the even worse fact that capitalist profits would grow FAR faster than labor earnings?

It's the same flavor of half-truth as "3rd-world exploitation has spurred the growth of 'developing' economies and their '''middle''' class" while ignoring the fact that the lot in life of the median 3rd-worlder hasn't been helped at all, and the only groups significantly helped have been the wealth and political security of their ruling class.

"country of residency is by far the most important determinant of global income inequality, which suggests that the reduction in labor barriers would significantly reduce global income inequality"

Seriously just read a book, do any research at all

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_results_of_migration#Impact_on_the_migrants_and_global_poverty

And what do you have to present, your feelings?

Yes, its only a coincidence that giving workers more power and autonomy ends up helping them. Nothing to see here folks…

This is bullshit, see Borjas (2015): hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/working papers/Mariel2015.pdf

The key question that must be asked when saying that immigrants improve the economy is "Whose economy?" As someone else ITT said already, immigrants from poor quality-of-life countries will gladly accept lower wages and living conditions than a US citizen because:

As job opportunities decrease for lower-skill individuals due to technological change and outsourcing, I can't see how more low-skill immigration is a good idea. I can't fault them for wanting a better life for their kids, but we have too many people with not enough ability for the economy of the future.

This is because immigrants from Africa proper are pre-selected for skill and intelligence, as they have to go through the immigration system, as opposed to jumping the border. To use a Trumpism, Nigeria is sending their best, but Mexico isn't. It turns out that relatively well-off African immigrants to the US benefit a great deal from affirmative action, which should, I think, focus on helping descendants of slaves.

Just because the average IQ of Nigeria, for instance, is not that high, dosen't mean that there aren't plenty of smart Nigerians. It is a huge country. Even the typical alt-right regression-to-the-mean argument is retarded because children will regress to the family mean, not the "racial" mean.

It wasn't colonialist till the end of its life.

Again, whose side do you think the people conducting this research are on? Look at fucking California - one of the states with the highest inequality - and tell me that the massive levels of immigration over the last half-century have done for inequality there

money.cnn.com/2015/05/05/news/economy/california-unequal/

How do American workers get more "power and autonomy" when they're forced to compete with Third Worlders that think receiving $5 USD for a 12 hour day is a godsend?

I don't even know what this means. Who cares if immigration and wages don't rise at the same levels. Immigration increases global prosperity and that it what matters.

>It's the same flavor of half-truth as "3rd-world exploitation has spurred the growth of 'developing' economies and their middle class" while ignoring the fact that the lot in life of the median 3rd-worlder hasn't been helped at all, and the only groups significantly helped have been the wealth and political security of their ruling class.

If that's the case then prove it. It sounds extremely unlikely that giving more power to 3rd world workers somehow hurts them.

Ah, so it's not about the "socialist revolution" at all, so much as it's about increasing the crumbs the "global proleteriat" receives while porky walks away with the fucking cake.

!!!!!

When I said "inequality", I didn't mean international inequality between workers, I meant national inequality BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL.

Who do you honestly think most of these economic gains from immigration go to? Workers, or capitalists? The more mass economic immigration there is, the more inequality there is between the working class and the capitalists.

That was a different poster, as was the other post you linked.

Yeah, mass economic immigration makes sense from a selfish individual perspective, but in the long-term societal-level perspective, it's utterly indefensible for any nation on earth.

True, I just love using American-Africans to short-circuit Holla Forumslacks' brains.

Indeed.

I should've phrased that more clearly: Increases in the earnings of ALL WORKERS ADDED TOGETHER have failed to keep up with the total population of workers, decreasing median earnings per-capita. Thus, saying "duh economy are growing" is a pointless statement, and blatant porky smokescreen.

JESUS CHRIST! Are you seriously saying that offshoring and transnational capitalism have "given power" to 3rd-worlders!?

this is literally rigged polls giving liberals a false sense security.
reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-reutersipsos-idUSKCN10910T

The reality is that polls with more accurate methodology (which allow people to stay home or vote 3rd party) still put Hillary and Trump very close in the race.

Also, Hillary is destroying the downballot vote right now. Her vampiric campaign has sucked all of the money out of local DNC chapters, and her active campaigning for Neocon votes is only going to dissuade people from turning out for local politicians.

The GOP has been imploding, but the DNC's "unity" is equally laughable.

That paper isn't even addressing the question of global prosperity, it only looks at the wage changes as it effects a local market.

Immigration to California has decreased inequality tremendously if you look at on a global scale.Stop analyzing using strictly local economies, that doesn't matter at all.

They don't. They lose power. Not everyone gets to win all the time. But I really don't care, their slight suffering is nothing compared to the huge gains the immigrants will have both in wages and the fact that they don't have to live on dirt floors anymore.

Ah yes, still carrying on with the "crumbs for the workers, cake for the porkies" argument.

And if your average porky gets to walk away with millions from this same process, well shit I guess it's all for the best right?

The green party is becoming more socialist, they might be able to gain some momentum

American workers, being participants in imperialist exploitation, must be punis..er, have solidarity with, third world noble savages, by opening their hearts, letting them come to America, and giving them their jobs. If they don't like it, they need to start the revolution already!

t. pro 3rd-world immigrationist

Offshoring and transnational capitalism did help Chinese workers and Indian workers to an extent, but most gains went to the people doing the outsourcing, while the working class in rich countries fared rather poorly in comparison. See pic from Milanovic (2012): documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/959251468176687085/pdf/wps6259.pdf

Are you really saying that increasing the power of workers has nothing to do with socialism?

And you call me porky?

Are we talking about immigration or something else? Because I'm talking about giving workers the power to migrate, that's all.

Is this true? I'm struggling to find data on global median incomes over time. Even if it was true, it seems like it would be due to other political factors father than giving workers the power to migrate.

Forgot to reply to you here

Yeah, I don't know what Read-a-fucking–Thomas-Friedman-book is on about

As the other poster said, if almost all the gains save a few crumbs are going to porky, how is this "increasing the power of workers"? So what, they can become a more-impoverished browner global middle-class that will ferociously defend porky because "I saw my wages go from $1 USD a day to $3 USD a day, capitalism works! Allah praise America!"

And you continue with the abysmal "take power away from the workers, it'll hurt porky in the long run" argument.

If the goal was to hurt porky at whatever the cost, then we would just nuke the world and call it quits.

I am highly suspicious of those figures, since they don't seem to take PPP into account. Remember that the poorer you are, the less ability you have to earn and spend your money in different places, so instead of benefiting from arbitrage, you are primarily exploited by it.

Firstly, I wasn't referring to GLOBAL labor earnings versus population, but to LOCAL labor earnings versus population. Secondly, what's the point of the "power" to emigrate if the entire world is identical 4th-world shitholes?

Again, do you have any evidence that unshackled labour must inevitably lead to socialist revolution?

Because honestly, if the global proleteriat has so much to gain from the system as it is, why will they want to change it? Who wouldn't become more of a capitalist if they felt wealth really trickled-down like that?

But you're not even acknowledging the massive gains that porky has made from globalism up until now, and will continue to make when labour has freedom of movement - you're only making appeals to some vague "increase in labour's power" because on average the global proleteriat becomes slightly wealthier simply because the Third World's proleteriat is so poor.

But is this true though? Does immigration really benefit the capitalists more than the workers? I'm open to evidence, I really am.

Well it sounds like you need to fix that, then. Are you interested in the workers of the world or not?

The evidence points to immigration being a mutual benefit between nations. So the idea that immigration will turn the world into "4th world shitholes" is a fantasy in your head.

Forgot to reply to you here

Does anyone actually think Hillary is leftist despite the rightist dumbfucks who'll believe anything a conservative schmuck will tell them?

She's spent more time courting Republicans than Sanderistas

Inevitably? No. Do you have evidence that taking away workers power help them? Am I talking to an accelerationist?

So you are saying we should make the system worse in hopes that it spurs a revolution? Why not just advocate for the enslavement of the working class, while you are at it?

nah

Look at the Goldwater campaign. Goldwater got his shit pushed in during the 1964 election and was blasted as being "crazy". Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act but his main shtick was being an economic libertarian, he wasn't a racialist or a religious conservative (actually part Jewish) and didn't campaign on such a platform. Even his reasoning for voting against Civil Rights was libertarian based (mostly that it forced integration rather than just removing legal barriers to integration).

Goldwater lost but his campaign inspired a large number of libertarian-minded types to join the Republican party and fully make it into a party focused on "small government", "individual rights", etc. inb4 semantics. The Republican party lost badly but grew tremendously in terms of active party members because of Goldwater. The "movement conservatives" of the Beltway are mostly in line with Goldwater, many joined around the time of his campaign.

This is likely what's going to happen with Trump, especially as the Democratic Party becomes more dominated by idpol due to its broadening and evergrowing ethnic coalition. The most likely response is that the mostly white Republican party is going to react against that with idpol of their own. If Trump loses, Trumpism will still grow.

The Republican Party is dying though as the demographics of the US change. The party elite wanted to pander to Hispanics with Yeb or Rubio this election and get into the idpol game. If Hillary wins the Republicans will never win another election, because she will naturalize millions of illegal immigrants and open the borders to even more future Democratic voters.

This is some extreme ideology

If the GOP dies, the DNC dies. The only thing that holds the DNC together at this point is literally that they are not the GOP, and the only thing that the GOP is holding onto is that they are not the DNC. Both political parties are widely hated and more than ever people question if there's really any serious differences between them. If the GOP breaks apart, you bet your ass that the DNC is going to follow soon after.

How does taking away power from first world workers by bringing in third-world workers to compete with them empower workers already in the first world? You basically have to believe that the net benefit for the third-worlders is greater than the loss incurred by first-worlders. Isn't this just accelerationism for first-worlders with charity for third-world workers?

Yes, you do. And this is true. Studies show a net benefit, despite the loss earnings from the native population.

And this makes sense, really, due to the idea of diminishing returns. You get a lot more mileage giving $100 to someone who makes $1000 a year rather than giving it to someone making $35,000 a year.

American politics will reorient the way Zizek described: with neoliberal Democrats trying desperately to maintain the capitalist status quo, and proto-fascist conservatives coalescing into a revolutionary new Republican Party.

The only thing missing is an actual Left; hopefully in the next few years we can stitch one together out of the remaining barely-relevant U.S. Communist parties, the Greens, and disaffected progressive liberals.

an actual left is fulminating but it's still in its nascent stages

we'd be better off cultivating that than trying to reform these old slabs of the old failed left

you are seriously retarded

I think a lot of you are glossing over the public's view of the candidates. Neither has overwhelming support from the American people, both with some of the worst approval ratings for any Presidential candidate.

Whoever gets the White House is going to get fucked in the ass. Everyone will be waiting to see them get screwed.

This post is why the working class votes for nationalists.

I can't help that the white working class isn't interested in the well-being of their fellow workers. Sounds like they need to get their priorities straight.

textbook cucking

It's going to be like . The Republican base isn't going to forgive the Republican politicians/establishment that spent more time sandbagging Trump than they did mounting an effective opposition to Hillary (see: Kasich, Romney, Jeb, etc refusing to endorse Trump, Ryan dragging his feet about endorsing Trump, etc).

It's not like the working class is interested in socialism in the U.S. anyway. Decades of propaganda took care of that.

...

That's right

...

You do realize the United States had a strong socialist movement until McCarthy threw all the leaders in jail? Little successes, like I don't know, the fucking unions, civil rights movements and the first and second wave of feminism Most people consider the leaders of the civil rights movements heroes, but don't even know the vast majority were communist.

Communism appeals to logic( a straightforward economic analysis of the system), whereas fascism is all about spooky shit like "muh nation" and "muh culshure". It's way easier for the generally apolitical masses to grasp, than leftism.

Just because something is appealing doesn't mean it isn't devoid of substance.

Pls happen. Now is the time to spread leftism through poor conservative areas and activate their class consciousness.

Good luck with that, when the left promises the same kind of accelerationism that liberals do except with a promise of revolution sometime in the future. Just look at this thread.

Considering that poorer conservative areas are currently supporting a proto-fascist because he puts "America First", how do you think a movement that, says, on the other hand, "Sorry, but we need to put the third world first, deal with it and give up your job" will go over?

and that's right about where you lost your white working class support

Pure ideology.

"I know better than actual working class people do because I read 19th century literature while they vote based on their experience with globalism fukin plebs"

This.

The reason that SJW types and other intersectional activist types have such prominence is because the actual leftist anti-capitalists were largely prosecuted and thrown in jail. Not to mention 50+ years of propaganda making socialism=literal Hitler in the eyes of many Americans. Which is why I believe that the bulk of what you could call 'anti-communist' leftism comes from the USA ie, Chomsky.

The revolution will not happen in the USA, for every goddamn reason in the book. There is a difference between being a brain damaged TW like Unruhe and opening your eyes.

...

But Chomsky's done more in aiding the cause of anti-capitalist sentiment, and blatant US war-mongering than he has for hurting the modern Left's image.

That isn't what we say at all. We say, "capitalism is the root of your economic issues." I agree that we should try to bring up the living standards of these countries instead of import everyone to the West, but that will never happen under capitalism.

I used to be a fascist. I understand exactly where the appeal is. You didn't argue.

Would you say that Katy Perry's music is high art because it's the most popular? No? Then "the majority of X demographic supports this" is not an argument for the validity of the philosophy.

Also
We care about THE working class black or white. We aren't trying to appeal to a specific ethnicity in the working class.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthy

look at that list, most are more SJW than they are Marxist-Leninist or whatever

also overwhelmingly Jewish

SJWs are more popular because "idpol" is more important to people than the prospect of making a few extra bucks a day that FULLCOMMUNISM offers them

Cool. But I'm saying your dropoff and isolation from white working class people coincides around the time you decided to go full jew and ride the civil rights movement. Ever notice most of those communists involved were Jews tho fam?

Pol, I hate to break it to you but the concept of "SJW" didn't even exist in the 1950s. McCarthy was attacking actual communist sympathizers, not Kotaku journalists.

What are you trying to say, that we should have never tried to end oppression of minorities? Because it upset your precious white workers to be on the same level as brown people?

This just shows how shallow the white working class's support really was. We will have better success increasing immigration and minority birth rates than trying to appeal to these fuckers.

Is there any good reason to suspect that minorities will have class-consciousness, as opposed to race-consciousness, and that they will be inclined towards revolution rather than supporting the status quo? Consider that many Black and Hispanics saw their well-being improve somewhat during Obama's tenure, and that they chose Hillary over S█████ because they view her as an extension of his tenure, and viewed S█████ as too radical or unlikely to win, while also sometimes accusing whites who voted S█████ of only being able to do because of white muh privilege.

The papers cited to arrive at this number call for half the developing world to move to the developed world then assumes once these people were over here they'd be productive as the people already here.

Cool. But I'm saying your dropoff and isolation from white working class people coincides around the time you decided to go full jew and ride the civil rights movement. Ever notice most of those communists involved were Jews tho fam?

Ride it? Most of the black people leading it were communist beforehand. They read Marx, they saw it as an emancipatory ideology. They were suffering economic oppression and they saw a system that would put them on equal footing with everyone else.

Most of the people in the victim list are intellectuals and union leaders. What's SJW about that? They aren't SJW, because they are using an economic analysis of the system.

And yeah I know. I'm a mixed race Jewish communist as well.

If the "white working class" can't stand the fact that a brown person should be able to sit at the front of the bus with the white people, then maybe they aren't worth appealing to. Our support with the white working class dropped off before the civil rights movement, the keyword is white. The black working class wasn't phased by the propaganda since the same people telling them communism was evil would then turn around and beat the shit of their brother for being a nigger.

Is there any good reason to suspect whites do? You want to compare the white vote of Hillary vs. Sand-rs? Why not compare how many whites voted for Trump over Sand-rs, and then ask again just how class conscious they are.

When the inevitable demographic tide of brown people put whites in the minority, do you want the white working class to be known as the people who stood in opposition to them at every turn? Because that's going to end real well for you.

fuckk negro

I hope you're correct

:^)

We'll see about that.

GAS THE WHITES
CLASS WAR NOW

This is why everyone hates Nazis.

Well, seeing as most support of S█████ came from white people, I think you're more likely to see class-consciousness from them than from black people, at this point in time, although you can chalk some of it up to blacks and hispanics having not heard of S█████, or being older and nostalgic for Bill Clinton. After all, older voters of all races strongly supported Clinton, whereas younger voters supported S█████, though yonuger white voters supported him more than younger black or hispanic voters.

Also, hardly any minorities vote Republican because they're basically openly a white nationalist party, as opposed to the wink-wink-nudge-nudge white nationalism they used to practice before Trump became a thing. Just because most minorities vote Democrat dosen't mean they don't hold many reactionary views, or don't engage in their own forms of ethnocentrism.

I think we are going to see class consciousness from the younger working class, regardless of race. I still think older ethnic minorities are way more likely to go lefty than older white people.

This is why everyone thinks commies are histrionic. It's called a fucking wall.

Agreed, I think it has to do with the fact that younger working class people have only tough times to look forward to, whereas older people have nostalgia for more prosperous times in the past.

Don't think so.

This is because blacks only make up 13% of the population. So of course more whites than blacks voted for S█████. That's no argument that whites are any more class conscious than blacks on average.

What about the whole birth rate thing?

But Clinton consistently had far more support as a proportion of black primary voters. Every journalist and his dog repeatedly pointed out that S█████ had a "black" problem, and seemed to do his best in the "Whitopia" states of the northern US

Except you know, the fact that whites have significantly lower birth rates than the darkies :/.

Obviously, I mean that Clinton got a larger share of the black vote than S█████ did, especially among older black voters. It was nearly even, slightly favoring S█████, among black voters under 30, though they didn't vote in large numbers.

The black vote carried Hillary in the South. Thinkpiece after thinkpiece was written in shitty liberal rags about how people who voted for S█████ were racists because the blacks were voting for Clinton. Overall, Clinton won like 70% of the black vote.

You are still talking about *within the Democratic primary*. This is non-informative, since most whites voted in the Republican primary while practically no blacks did. If you have evidence that a larger percentage of whites voted for S█████ than blacks, by all means present it.

You can't say "most white people support Sand-rs" based on the Democratic primary, because the average white person isn't even a Democrat.

That's like saying "white people are 75% supporters of the Green Party" based on the Green Party getting 3/4 white vote.

(sweet Hitler dubs)

Obviously you'd have to deport the ones here already. Regardless, there's no reason that whites should have such low birth rates- if we remove the poz from our education system and focus on providing jobs that provide a livable wage, we could easily bring that number up

You're both being disingenuous. Is Clinton's dominance among black Democrat voters really that hard to swallow? Let alone the question of how much "class consciousness" among blacks is tied into racial politics (i.e. "White people are rich, therefore higher taxes on the wealthy = higher taxes on white people")

Whites should just roll over and watch their country join the world for fear of retribution when nonwhites take over.

Communists have murdered far more people than Nazis allegedly did.

the third world*

Seriously you outright admit that retribution for the crimes of their ancestors is a likely possibility of a nonwhite takeover of America, but somehow still think its a good idea and whites are evil for opposing it.

Yeah because you were only around for like 5 years before your ideology came crashing down. In that time you murdered a fuck ton of people. The Soviets would come across villages full of 100's of dead people when they were reclaiming their territory.

This is why everyone hates Nazis.

Just to hammer this in

...

I thought NEETsocs nowadays say that the Holocaust didn't go far enough?

...

I've been studying US politics closely for 16 years. I think you're right about the GOP dying. I think Johnson's polling between 9-12 percent is proof of this. That is an UNPRECEDENTED number for any third party, especially when you consider it's because of disaffected petite bourgeoisie that were renowned for working in lock step with the GOP come hell or high water.

What happens after they die I cannot phantom a guess. Maybe they'll splinter into bunch of neo fascists parties? I don't believe you'll be able to wrangle the very ignorant GOP base into another cohesive party when they're sooo easy to fool.

I think we will have a reactionary party in the vein of the European neofascist parties a Libertarian-leaning Republican party, and maybe a religious right-wing party in the vein of tea party, or at least, I would expect these three wings in the new version of the GOP. A recent poll showed that among 18-30 year olds Johnson had 23% of the vote after Clinton's 41%.

It switches between whichever is most convenient at the time

show me the ones of functional gas chambers

Except they couldn't and these mass graves at places like Treblinka where 500,000 Jews supposedly lie have no human remains in them. I'd reccomend some documentaries discussing this but you're not going to bother educating themselves.

This is like posting pictures of the 1922 Volga famine and saying SEE THE HOLODOMOR KILLED 12 TRILLION UKRANIANS LOOK AT THIS UNSOURCED PHOTO. holodomor is about as much a "genocide" as the holohoax tbh

I don't see the issue. Don't give people a reason to want to enact revenge on you and it won't be a problem.

(For example, don't be a Nazi advocating racial cleansing.)

Polls aren't very accurate in determining the final turnout for third parties. As much as either side is hoping that Johnson (or Stein) will be the one that hands defeat to the other, I wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate turnout is much lower than expected

...

You make a good point but do you have numbers from another source besides Gallup? They fucked up the 2012 election so bad that they stopped doing election polls altogether (aside from likability stuff).

Uh no we explain how they're being exploited and if they actually took home anything close to the value their labor produces, they would be so much better off.

The actual turnout vs voter likeability seems to rather show just how much people play politics by not "throwing away their vote"

Exactly. Due to the American system a third-party vote for most of the last century was more of a protest vote than anything. Plus I suspect most of the Republican protest-voters are going to go with Clinton anyway, since she's made it pretty clear she's going to continue with their neo-liberal interventionist designs

Even if there were no gas chambers, that still wouldn't explain away the actions of the SS Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front.

user, the Democratic Party is already full neolib. They will never be socialist. Ever. Period.

People complain about the white working class all the time while doing nothing to help spread class consciousness among their ranks and only lambast them as benighted rubes. Reminder that Oklahoma had one of the largest Socialist Party memberships in the US at the turn of the 20th century.

Enough with this meme.

It certainly isn't the "Holocaust" narrative people keep claiming

I'd say Nazis murdering Jews is internment camps is pretty darn close to "the Holocaust narrative".
Does it really make a difference to anyone what the Nazi's weapon of choice was?

Even if we ignore—for the sake of argument—numerous flaws in mainstream figures (unrealistic calculations of PPP, lumping together rural and urban localities, exclusion of some income and expenditure categories, misattribution of all economic gains to neoliberalization, conflation of trade with neoliberal policies, an excessive focus on China/India, etc):
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X04000075

…Just look at what the other guy posted in about the mainstream figures. Taken completely at face value, they state that while the most utterly destitute are being raised from famine, they are being lifted only far enough to be productive cogs at the bottom of the global economy and no further. They also state that this is fueled primarily by firesale liquification of middle-class, and that the inequality gap between all other groups and the super-rich is widening. On top of this, the era of neoliberalism also coincides with a sharp downturn in global economic growth.

Simply put, even at best and in their own words, neoliberal poverty reduction is an unsustainable program to create a massive global underclass of workers just above lethal poverty, permanently eliminate the middle class, massively enrich the wealthy, and do so at the expense of economic development.

The neolib argument you're repeating is prima facie absurd

WEW W E EWEWEWE EW WEW

The 1960s weren't when American class consciousness evaporated, it was the 1970s offshoring/immigration boom, which American "leftists" blithely ignored in favor of continuing to fixate on phony idpol "struggles" that had in fact been won and finished during the 1960s.

And, as I noted earlier, by totally ignoring median income/standard of life in favor of meaningless GDP/capita measurements.

Prosperity-driven fertility reduction is contagious, if we can bolster the whole working class and force cultural integration of migrants against ghettoization, their fertility soon drops to native levels.

When I say "mainstream left", I don't just mean the Democratic Party, I also mean their membership. Look at what's happening to the British Labor Party, as long as socialist sympathies exist among the proles, there is always a chance the party can be reclaimed through reverse-entryism.

I wanted to save this as a funny pic but I couldn't do it. Just imagining being that guy on his knees in front of the pit of corpses… gun to your head, knowing that will be you in a few seconds… it's too haunting to save.

Trump is going to win you dirty commies, be prepared

No he's not

Once the system betrayed the commie, Hillary lost

Trump isn't going to win

lmao, no-one will touch gerrymandering because both sides do it in near equal proportion.

The first pic is a district created purely to represent Chicago's Hispanic population, another was created on behalf of Florida's African-American community.

Trump is going to win.

The gas chambers existed retard. We have overwhelming evidence of horrible Nazi war crimes against Jews. There are documents, they just use codewords like "special processing"

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2010/10/mass-graves-and-dead-bodies.html?m=1

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html?m=1

Documents about Auschwitz gas chamber

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2011/10/how-reliable-and-authentic-is-broad.html?m=1

To the

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2009/11/that-plume-was-actually-even-bigger.html?m=1

One of the most incriminating things as far as photos go is evidence of open air mass burnings. The crematoriums were more than equipped to handle a Typhus infection. If it was just typhus victims, they wouldn't of had to of been doing open air burnings of body as often as you claim.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2012/08/the-auschwitz-open-air-incineration.html?m=1

Auschwitz labour reports coincide with the date mass gassings took place.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2012/09/auschwitz-labour-force-reports-as.html?m=1

Not to mention the Sonderkomando journals, literal phootage of the gas vans, confession after confession that match up perfectly with 90% of the inmates. There is literally so much evidence for the holocaust it's irrefutable. This is how historians decide shit happen. It's the equivalent of me going "where are the bodies of the staved Ukranians? SHOW ME RIGHT NOW".

The Holocaust "narrative" happen. If you hate Jews so much, wear it like a badge or find a new ideology.

Just to reiterate in case you missed it: "Research suggests that migration is beneficial both to the receiving and sending countries.[29] According to one study, welfare increases in both types of countries: "welfare impact of observed levels of migration is substantial, at about 5% to 10% for the main receiving countries and about 10% in countries with large incoming remittances"."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_results_of_migration

Where's the proof? If its so clear that immigration reduces the net global median income, then surely this data must not be hard to find.

First past the post voting is bound to:
1. Reduce the number of parties, and the number of candidates in each district to two
2. Push both parties into the middle

So no, nothing interesting will happen in US before a better voting system.

The Holodomer wasn't genocide, but unlike Holocaust denial historians actually have proof of environmental factors that affected harvest. And even then, it was still exacerbated by Soviet policy. There's a difference between "we aren't sure what caused the famine and we have conflicting evidence about why it happen" and "The gas chambers never existed, all the evidence if forged, everyone who confessed lied and so did all the inmates.". One based on unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific trash. I'll let you guess which one

Is it seriously that much of a chance Hillary will win? Holla Forumstards are treating it like Trump has it in the bag.

No he's not

Most electoral college forecasts put Hillary's odds of winning at around 80%.

So if you have any extra money and want to milk a betting poltard, now would be the time.

Hillary is going to be the third GWB in a row, so nothing exciting there, but I'm gonna love the utter butthurt of trumpniggers.

And oh, you mean that Richard Krieg guy who did a GPR scan of Treblinka. Funny you should mention that, he actually found evidence consistent with mass graves and never published his research because of that.

>The probable reason why Krege’s report has not been published is that Krege realized that his GPR had discovered what it was supposed to prove the non-existence of, i.e. soil disturbances indicating the presence of mass graves corresponding to mass murder on an enormous scale. For indications in this direction see the assessment of Krege’s published GPR scan by GPR expert Lawrence B. Conyers Quoted in the post dated Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:12 am by "wet blanket" on the "Atheist Parents" discussion forum, atheistparents.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14940&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25); regarding Conyers' GPR expertise see his website at University of Denver, mysite.du.edu/~lconyer/).

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_9569.html

Fucking Holla Forumslyps are literally retarded.

Btw comrades, if you ever want to get a Holla Forumslyp to shut up about Holocaust denial send them to the links I posted. The guys at Holocaust Controversies are awesome. They regularly refute revisionist in hopes of ending holocaust denial.

Look at the graph in my last post, the one in the other post I linked, and the graphs above, 1st-world workers are being eaten alive, and 3rd-world workers aren't catching up. Look at historical statistics of massive prosperity in the protectionist era, and all that prosperity being undone in the neoliberal era. Correlation isn't necessarily causation, but something is unquestionably responsible.

Aside from on-the-ground impact, there is also fundamental economic principle. Increasing supply decreases value, econ 101.

As for the Wikipedia article, it is wall-to-wall shilling that fails to even mention any opposing view, chock full of "studies" by nothing but neoliberals. Aside from the usual "lel, increasing GDP is always good for the proles!" rhetoric I complained of, it contains plenty of other doozies, like in the abstract for the citation of the paragraph you quoted:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/jeea.12110/abstract
>We compare welfare under the observed levels of migration to a no-migration counterfactual. In the long run, natives in countries that received a lot of migration—such as Canada or Australia—are better off due to greater product variety available in consumption and as intermediate inputs. In the short run, the impact of migration on average welfare in these countries is close to zero, while the skilled and unskilled natives tend to experience welfare changes of opposite signs.
Wow, thanks a pantload, immigration, I'm truly humbled.

Here, have a counter-study:
cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

"First World labour just doesn't know how good they have it, and needs to be punished for being comprised of lazy overpaid shits via more competition" in five…four…

Yeh he is

Nope.

Trump will fix the GOP and remove commies

The holocaust is exaggerated, the gas chambers were rebuilt and aren't what was originally there, and even Jews who question it are torn apart instead of proven wrong. If it's real why is it illegal to question it in so many places?

It's not even illegal in every country. The Gas Chambers were rebuilt because they had been destroyed, but we have evidence of the original foundations of the gas chambers at Auschiwtz and aerial photos of the where the gas chambers were as well.

What "Jews" who question it? And "they" are proven wrong over and over again just like all Holocaust deniers.

You know we even have footage of the Germans gassing people right?

Did you bother to even look through everything I posted, or is that shitty Holla Forums meme your argument?

If there is footage of them doing it, why is there a debate about whether they did it?
Is it the piles of bodies? The ones who died of disease caused by the allied attacks cutting off supplies?

Oy vey that pesky Holla Forums, the goyim know too much

Why is there debate about wether reptilians rule the world if they don't? There is no debate among historians in academia, only amongst NEETS online. The Holocaust being a Jewish lie is so integral to your ideology that there is literally nothing anyone can show you that would change your mind.

No, it's the piles of bodies that were discovered almost everywhere the Nazi's invaded. Look at the mass graves link I posted, nearly all of them are sourced(some have dead links as it was posted a few years ago).

The Soviets found piles of ash and human remains around Treblinka when they liberated it and they took photos.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2016/07/german-footage-of-homicidal-gassing_23.html
This link talks about where we got the footage, it's legitimacy etc.

Here's a direct link to the footage: ushmm.org/online/film/display/detail.php?file_num=4594

First picture: Treblinka a pile of ash

Second: Famous photo "The Law Jew in Vinnista" with a revisionist twist

Third: Russian people the Nazi's hung.

Some of that is interesting, though the first link only describes them gassing a bunch of people who had been in the hospital for over 3 years, in other words mass euthanasia. It was only a few hundred, guess sick goyim aren't important enough to increase the number.
That site's section about holocaust deniers is also very snarky and butthurt for a source that claims to be about information and providing multiple explanations.

The other one is random clips that could've been spliced together from any points in time. I see people already sick being disposed of because they aren't useful, and that doesn't mean it adds up to 6 gorillion.

But not all the inmates lied.

youtube.com/watch?v=bMyoEG2c7a0

Where are the bodies?

Optimism, I like it.

Under the ground in Treblinka. Again, Kreg found a soil disturbances consistent with a mass grave. And it's not like there were never bodies found there, as I've pointed out many times already the Soviets reported human remains everywhere and following the liberations the people around the town did mass grave robberies looking for gold teeth.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2010/11/investigation-of-treblika-by-forensic.html

Archeological investigations of other camps have been done and mass graves and human remains were recovered. See Belzec

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2011/08/human-remains-inside-mass-graves-at.html

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2006/05/carlo-mattogno-on-belzec_31.html

The picture is militiamen who found grave robbers red handed and took a picture(Treblinka)

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2008/03/gold-rush-in-treblinka.html

Anyway, we literally have less evidence to support the transit camp theory than we do the extermination camp theory, so it begs the question of where the missing 1.5 Jews that went to the Atkon Reinhard camps and 1 million at Auscwhitz went.

If you're afraid of reading links or something that's fine but your "WHERE ARE DUH BODIES" questions can be answered with a quick look on Google into any archaeological investigations that have happen at the camps.

The site is snarky but that doesn't invalidate their arguments. The video is very much clear that the Nazi's used gas chambers to gas Jews who were unfit for work. I don't know what else you want to prove the Holocaust, or why if this is consistent and corroborates other Holocaust evidence you still don't take it as proof in support of the Holocaust and instead to support the Nazi's gently mass euthanizing poor Typhus victims or something.

Anyway, I think this post articulates the answer to your question "Why do people still talk about it if it happen?" better than I ever could.

I show you a video of Nazi's gassing Jews and you still manage to excuse it away. That is why people still talk about it, because revisionist will always excuse away inconvenient evidence, no matter how explicit it is.

This isn't how historians decide if something happen. For everyone of these guys saying "Auscwhtiz wasn't bad" there are 1000's of reports from other inmates that have parts that corroborate each other and that also match up with SS testimony.

You had one job: show that global median wages are declining due to immigration. Instead, you posted five graphs, none of which even attempted to show this.

At least you are right about this: Correlation is not causation. So stop posting random information hoping to infer a correlation from it.

You make fun of this, but consumption is what drives the economy is capitalist societies. You know this already, right?

Hillary winning by a land-slide only reconfirms idpol neo-liberalism and cements it as a party platform.

All of B████s calls for a political and class reform will get buried in an avalanche of shitflinging between a terrible Hawk presidency of Hillary and Republicans controlling the Congress.

The American left will inevitably go the same way it went with Nader in 2001, and go to Green-Party and other smaller parties.

It will certainly not be good. A defeat for Clinton and bad presidency with a blundering Trump will be much better for the B████ Democrat faction. But Trump is a fucking idiot and the possibilities of him becoming president are lessening by the days. The most dangerous aspect in all of this, is if a large portion of the white American working class goes even further to the right, in opposing the neo-liberal status quo.

Also, here is a report about the homicidal gas vans directly from the Nazi's that even the revisionist Santiago Alvarez "cannot find any formal reasons to suspect a forgery in this case" (Alvarez, The Gas Vans, p. 43).

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2015/12/rebuttal-of-alvarez-on-gas-vans-becker.html

The Holocaust, gas cambers, mass executions and amongst other Nazi war crimes happen, warts and all. The question is if you are willing to accept that. ML's acknowledge communist crimes while also pointing out parts about the regime they liked and systems they thought were efficient. Are you Nazi's ready to do the same? If not, I recommend you start reading Capital by Karl Marx because everything you know is a falsehood.

I wouldn't bet on over 80% chances he's not.

To the people arguing about immigration previously in this thread, don't buy into the narrative. America doesn't have an immigration problem it has an IDPOL problem.

look at the average immigration rate in the US

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Demographics

In 2010 the US accepted 39,956,000 foreign born immigrants. These make about 10% of the United States total population. Now look at the total non-Hispanic White population which currently stands at 196,817,552, at about 64% of the total population.

What is happening to the US is as a natural phenomenon as it can be within capitalism. Whites have achieved greater median income than non-whites and Immigrants come to America to do jobs white Americans don't do anymore. This level of economic immigration isn't even comparable to the Muslim refugee influx which could very well be 3 million at an ethnic population of 64.7 million, since replacement rates in Germany are far lower than that of the US.

Secondly, while the Trump demand "to bring back jobs" sounds Keynensian and protectionist it stands in teh face of reason as to why this would be any different from the jobs being created by Obama, meaning low skilled unstable jobs with a very poor wage. In fact unemployment isn't that bad in the US compared to Europe who suffers from far deeper structural economic problems.

Why would the country that split teh Atom and went to the moon, fucking want to bring air-conditioning factories back to the US. Why would anyone want to work in a fast food joint, while competing with thousands of others lower median income from even poorer backgrounds who will do teh same job much more happily since they basically view it as "charity" in their case. Why doesn't the US adopt a Soviet planned economy if it is this desperate for employment?

So the real issue isn't with employment, it isn't even with automation (since nothing really stops you from creating new jobs that aren't based on industrial production.).

The main problem is that Capital has become lazy,decadent and cocky. And since too much Capital and wealth has been concentrated on too few a hands, innovation is slowly dying. The American elites know this and are terrified of China, India and Brazil and the other developing capitalists powers who can play the game of global Capital better than them in terms of production.

Continuing this same point:

If this above mentioned case of Capital stagnating and the developing world usurping the Western dollar backed world of global capitalism for their own of "Capitalism with Asian values" as Zizi says. Then it makes sense to promote idpol and general identitarian conflict. The United States ever since the Civil War has always been a society in conflict with itself, because Capital demands conflict to generate profit. In the never ending "creative destruction" of Capitalism what is left in it's wake is ruins, such as the rust belt and ghettos. But in order to keep the working populace distracted from the real enemy, which is big Capital and multinational corporations it promotes racial conflict, identitarianism, and endless propaganda that praises bourgeois and Capitalist values and morals.

But as it stands we are looking at a real case of a Falling rates of profit which global capitalism is suffering, and a new global financial crisis is so painful that most bourgeoisie don't even want to imagine it.

Which means only one thing, the American economic decline is non-reversible. No fascist,liberal,libertarian or socialist leaning government can solve it. If in the example of Negri and Hardt global capital is the two headed eagle of state on the one hand and Capital on the other. Then we are looking at a potability in which the one head eat the other, which spells out civil conflict.

If Americans want to avoid that, then they must abandon partisan politics, drop idpol entirely, abstain from the mainstream consumerist culture that promotes Capitalism, and invent from the grounds up a new form of socialism that takes advantage of the current Capitalist stagnation and replace it with new forms of work, exchange and co-operation. This is the only way their society can survive in the future.

If you read my post, you'll notice I describe most data on the subject as very low quality, and refer to graphs in my post and another guy's post as indicating that while mainstream data does show a rise in global median income, it also shows this rise to be well below what is necessary for the creation of a global middle class.

As an aside, I also noted that this transfer of income from the middle class to the poor is a mere sideshow, to the overwhelming majority of new income and wealth worldwide going to the ultra-rich.

No, I posted five graphs to illustrate the absurdity of your separate claim that:

That fails to take into account the massive numbers of 2nd-generation immigrants, a further 33 million (11% of the population) in 2009. If all surplus immigration as a result of post-1960s neoliberalization laws is added together, it amounts to a staggering 72 million. Keep in mind this is just immigrants, not including millions more "nearshore" maquiladora and crossborder commuters.

Wow, yeah, "they do jobs we Americans don't want" instead of "they accept pay NOBODY wants". Fuck off.

Maybe because if they were stateside, unionized, and free from neoliberal downward pressure, they would become decent careers, just like last time when FDR reversed centuries of robber baronies and millennia of feudalism to create the middle class?

Maybe also because every immigrant we let in, every job we send overseas, every atrocity we condone by refusing to embargo or tariff, is at its root a betrayal of the victories won by organized labor and socialism, a bootlicking, subhuman submission to transnational capital against the rule of law our forefathers fought so desperately to achieve.

No, it is that since the 1970s capital has won a political reversal against the progress made by the proletariat from the 1880s-1970s, and seeks to make further gains yet. Never forget that the conditions of the lowliest 3rd-world backwater are identical to those that prevailed for most of the population in what is now the 1st-world.

We did it before, we can do it again.

Whether it's the bluntest form of isolationism, or enlightened FairTrade countervailing duty mandates and foreign aid, subsidized by the vastly superior productivity of our less oppressed working class, we can fix global poverty by killing neoliberalism.

Are you kidding me? Showing a random correlation proves nothing. Much of the declines you show can be attributed to free trade agreements. People who have put much more thought into this than you have come to the opposite conclusion about immigration.

But does the increased income from immigration go mostly to the ultra-rich? Which is, you know, the subject we are debating?

Absolutely spot on

When did I say much of it WASN'T to do with free trade? Offshoring and immigration work in lockstep to enslave the working class to capitalists, alongside deregulation and privatization, the other two cornerstones of neoliberalism.

Absolutely, read the CIS study I linked. 97% of additional GDP goes from the pay/benefits of natives, to immigrants as pay/benefits (at rates far lower than natives earn), the remainder goes to their employers (porky). Further, the increased population cuts median compensation in American destinations of immigration, and increases it in Mexican sources of emigration, by an almost identical 3% compensation per 10% immigration/emmigration, due to labor market pressure.

I already described how this is a perfectly natural phenomenon in Capitalism. Replacement rates for white households aren't met not because there are no jobs for them. But because the higher the class and median income is, the the fewer children are going to be produced. In a a bourgeois Capitalist society this a natural progression. Parents earn more, and therefore pay more, for tuition, healthcare and housing. This is how it works and American elites know it, that that greatest allure for Capitalism is the drive for sucess and wealth. Not making children, as that is an early industrial ideal of a Malthusian centralized society.

I already said that those two are interchangeable you idiot.

Another point I did not mention in my previous post in why the situation is un-salvageble, is that the US was and is the center of international capital. And not in in any figurative way. The ability of the US ever since the 70's to go beyond gold backed currencies has made the US the main beneficiary of global capital. Why? Well quite simply the US is graced with an unprecedented amount of Capital which as of now has expanded on every corner of the earth. The US can shore up a near unlimited amount of debt because of it's huge reserve of Capital. For example Goldman Sachs cannot go really bankrupt because all of it holds a huge amount of wealth it holds in investment banking. Thus the federal reserve will print even more money and bail them out. The US was never betrayed because the very system it has built is it's own construction. The US cannot lose it's hold on the international markets because the moment it does it collapses. You think things like TTIP , and TPP is geo-strategic posturing? No it's quite simply another way to ensure international markets play by Americas rules which are the unlimited accumulation of wealth by the multinationals. The crucial thing to distinguish is that such a long standing strategy is not completely suicidal. The "creative-destruction" of neo-liberal Capitalism does generate wealth. The riskier the investment the biggest the pay-out and this way America thinks it has secured it's economic future for the next 100 years. Unlimited profit by way of Venture Capital.

I already said that Capitalism is in decline due to an obvious falling rate of profits world-wide.Capital won those victories in teh 70's because the very system that exists today, generated at teh time an immense amount of wealth for the first world developing economies. I know this, because as Europoor it was the apex of the welfare state.

You cannot kill neo-liberalism for the same reason why you cannot reform Capitalism. My main point is that there is no point to increase production if there isn't a surplus of wealth being produced, you cannot reduce wages o China as you also cannot force a reversal into an industrial mode of the economy. It's just not profitable anymore for the first-world. A fundamental point in Marxism is that Capitalism always overcomes it's threshold, local markets become global, money becomes abstract currency, currency becomes numbers on a computer etc.When the threshold is reached, Capital cannot continue it's "undead" operation. The point is that if you cannot really produce anything new,generate new demands and increase the consumer demand in new markets, Capitalism enters a steep decline. This I think already became apparent with the mortgage crisis, in which the ability to service debt evaporated in the form of sub-prime loans, perfectly illustrating a decline in how the creative dynamism of modern Capitalism has permanently declined.

Conflating the effects of offshoring and the effects of immigration is a bit disingenuous. I mean, yes its all part of the same economy, but not *every aspect* of the economy is working in lockstep to benefit the capitalists. That is a childishly simplistic view, especially in light of the abundant data that shows immigration helps the poorest 3rd world workers the most.

Correct me if I am misunderstanding here, but are you saying that the vast majority of GDP growth goes to the workers while a measly 3% goes to porky? Doesn't this blatantly contradict your claim that the increased income goes mostly to the ultra-rich?

True, but I think this means that the parties aren't held together very well and thus are at risk of fracturing.

you cannot reduce wages to China level*

If this is the case, that wage increases/declines are symmetrical, then immigration wildly helps the working class due to the idea of diminishing returns. A person living in extreme poverty getting a 3% raise is going to see a gain in their quality of life (and their relative economic power) a lot more than someone in a wealthy country would be hurt by a 3% cut.

In this case, an even transfer of wealth with no net monetary gain is fantastic.

You mean the one that endorsed Clinton? They're fucking dead.

I hope you aren't attempting to imply that the US is reliant on foreign capital, or worse, that our current debt-reliance extends through the post-WWII US economic boom, because both are common but unambiguously false misconceptions.

Both the explosion of debt (especially federal, which before then was GOING DOWN after WWII), and the huge importance of the financial industry, are a recent event coinciding closely to the "left"-"right" convergence on porky-centric neolib/neocon "cut-'n-spend"/deregulation policies. But even now, US assets (financial or not) are far greater than liabilities, giving the nation a surplus of at least $123 trillion. Similarly, the share of US debt owed abroad is vastly exaggerated, accounting for a mere 15%. I highly recommend reading the following article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States

Simply put, we are not a balloon filled with paper, but even today an extremely resource and labor-rich nation, which (today as before) could support itself free from the corrupting influence of regulatory arbitrage.

The same was said back in the 1800s, and yet each injection of socdem reform bolstered decreasingly "capitalist" economies against collapse. Neolib meddling at home and neocon meddling abroad is simply bringing back all the problems we vanquished.

Not all of it, but offshoring and immigration in particular are closely linked, since without both, some industries could survive unscathed for practical geographic reasons.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that as clearly as I could have. The income immigrants get (at lower rates than their native competitors otherwise would) comes ENTIRELY from the income of native workers, all additional GDP that doesn't come out of native workers is funneled to porky.

You've got it backward. Americans earn more, so 3% of their earnings is much bigger than 3% of a Mexican's earnings. Also, remember that unlike employment substitution, these labor supply effects are not transferable within each market between natives and immigrants.

Not just that, the one that specifically advocated "courting the corporate community". Yeesh.

This is why I really don't buy the whole "the GOP is dying" thing. It's more likely they are just going to lose big, and they have lost big before, and only to win big again. Parties dying require *major* domestic turmoil.

If the GOP does die because of some major domestic catastrophe, it won't even be a good thing, because look who the Dems want fucking next in line! The goddamn Libertarian Party.

The Republican Party and Dem Party depend on each other. Political institutions as a whole are dying as a whole though.

The income immigrants get comes from the value comes from their own labor, after a large amount is skimmed by their employer. The idea that a worker is "taking" another worker's potential income is silly. If that is the case then anyone who has a job anywhere is "taking" another person's potential income.

Let's be clear: even this Conservative anti-immigration think tank doesn't say these percentages are the same. According to the data, the US sees a 2.5% drop while Mexico sees a 3.1% gain.

And it is true, like you said, that in terms of sheer numbers 3% is more money for a wealthier country vs. a poorer. But this doesn't address utility. For someone living on the extreme poverty, 3% provides them with more utility than a 3% increase for someone living an average developed world lifestyle. Not to mention that we aren't even taking into account the huge bumps the immigrants themselves receive, which is far more than 3%.

I would take $1000 from a rich man to give $10 to a starving man any day.

This. Mainstream Democrats really seem to be wedded to the idea that if the Republicans lose or "die out" it means they'll get to rule as an American PRI for the foreseeable future.

But I think the mainstream media (acting as Pravda for the Democrats) is papering over significant cracks in the party, what with the B████ phenomenon and the lackluster economic performance under Obama - "the president is just fixing what Bush broke" really isn't going to fly for a third Democrat term

Looking at the wage effect of immigration on each country does not captures the changes in total worker income like you claim. This is because the change in income of the immigrants themselves is not taken into consideration using this method.

Let me demonstrate:
Year 2000:
Mexico has two workers, both make $10
US has one worker, he makes $1000

*immigration happens*

Year 2010:
Mexico has one worker, he makes $10
US has two workers, they make $1000

Using this analysis, the average wages for a worker are unchanged for each country. But the average wage for a worker in general has grown incredibly. This is why the study you linked to does not answer the question of average worker wages'.

...

Obviously one would decrease while the other would increase.

Welcome to the thread

Yes, it's called "market saturation". Under normal conditions, any one worker will demand roughly identical treatment compared to any other worker of similar quality. In the case of unsustainably underpriced goods such as economic immigrants, it's called "dumping".

I would take $1000 from a rich man to give $10 to 100 starving men. The problem with economic immigration is that browbeaten poor generate less economic productivity per dollar invested than flourishing middle-class do. The reason such abuses are tolerated is because the downtrodden generate greater proportions of private profit for capitalists.

It's a pyramid scheme. Everyone would be better off employing as many 1st-worlders as possible, filtering 3rd-world offshoring through FairTrade mandates, and sending much greater amounts of foreign aid.

wew lad, nice digits
may kek bless your shitposts

So you're not a 100% certain?
some loyalty to the cause you got faggot

What cause

point proven
filtered & reported :)

Wow you're the first person to do that. I'm sure something will happen this time

Lotta loyalty for a hired shill :^)

...

Who's that turbokike?

If it comes down to it if Clinton or Trump are destined to be president I'd rather Clinton for the sheer amount of anal debris that are going to be flooded out of the alt right

Try again fuckboy

You speak in riddles

UUUU

Cool

All this relativism is getting a bit old tbh
Please be sure to respect my genders as being in absolute form, sinner

So far, the delusional responses I've gotten from Trumplets from posting the current polls is :

Okie dokie

OKEE DOKE

Are you having a panic attack

...

Do you think I'm voting for Clinton? Why are you posting 2008 tier memes at me I don't understand

u hafta unnastan

quality thread, D&C shills
comrade Lenin would be proud

Great posts

no u

Not him but you realize that this gif is from this year's DNC right? Hillary isn't exactly doing too well in regards to her health or sanity, let alone all the STDs she has contracted from Bill.

your in this thread as well? your no where near as intellectually superior as I am, just fuck off back to
>>>/bane/

Get a load of this hothead here

you'll take my load and you'll like it you fucking homo

THANKS DOC

JOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDENJOHN MADDEN

Even as a B████crat, I have to say that Trump magically losing 95% of his support immediately after the DNC concluded Shillary's rape of the Democratic primaries is about as believable as Russia invading.

That's not how that works. This isn't based on popular vote, this is about the electoral college and popular support in specific states. It's likelihood of victory, not votes counted.

If the election were to happen say today, as the chart suggests, popular vote would have Clinton win by a ten point lead. But taking everything else to account, it gets closer with projections on November. That said Hillary is still projected to win. At this point however.

Oop, right. I only barely glanced at the picture, because the news of an overnight 10-point drop was already too much to take seriously.

Doc I think there's something wrong with my medicine, it doesn't feel the same as usual.

What can't be sustained? What is the "real" price of their labor? Why do you choose to blame immigrants for "market saturation", when really it is the sheer number of workers in general?

Wait, what? This goes directly against the narrative that the reason immigrants are a problem is that they are willing to do hard labor for such a low price. I have literally never heard someone say that the reason immigration is bad is because employers don't get as much bang for their buck.

Well yeah, and we'd be better off with a worldwide communist revolution too. But in the meantime, immigration is a pretty good way to help lift the 3rd world out of poverty. Especially compared to the alternative of shutting our borders.

I don't understand you Holla Forums faggots. Shouldn't you want Trump to win if only to get money out of politics and stop corruption so you won't get fucked next time you run a commie in Democrat primaries?

We also care about things like the economy, the environment, and not starting WW3.

So "hooray we elected an outsider" isn't that impressive if that outsider will make the world a terrible place with his terrible ideology. I'll take the status quo any day over that.

Trump might even make socio-economic conditions in US last bit longer, so business as usual is much more preferable for it at least keeps the revolutionary potential rising.

Does Holla Forums even listen to a single word this man says, or do they just meme about MUH ENERGY and blindly assume that he'll make killing nonwhites legal on his first day in office? Sure, they're going to claim that if he wasn't pro-Israel they'd hex him with their Hebrew sorcery or something, but at the same time they want to believe that he's some kind of maverick that always says what he thinks.

It's absolutely incredible how so many of them are burgers yet they are utterly unaware of how virtually every anti-Muslim voice in politics is a Jewish sympathizer. Jews are part of the same "Western Civilization" they claim to be so concerned with.

We aren't stupid enough to believe he will actually do this.

We also sure as hell don't think the Demoshits are even possible to redeem, let alone worthwhile. S█████ pissed off a bunch of millennials and demonstrated the utter naivete of reformism. That's already a huge plus to us.

Their desperate willingness to suffer conditions that render them unable to consume the products of the economy that pays their higher-than-birthplace wages, and the massive externality of a bottomless surplus army of labor to generate replacements for them if they dare advance beyond their lot in life.

You mean the 22% of our present population that wouldn't otherwise be here? Maybe the billions more offshore that couldn't otherwise undercut us and burn down whole domestic economic sectors?

I didn't say immigrants earn their employers less money, I said they make the economy as a whole less money, but give their employers more money. Anything that makes it easier to oppress workers, including mass economic immigration, is a sociopathic act intended to enrich capitalists at the expense of everyone else.

Except the neoliberal Ponzi scheme will run out of 1st-world economies to destroy long before that happens. That leaves the 3rd-world poor only somewhat less poor, and the rich unopposed by their only truly threatening enemies (plus infinitely richer).

Trump would do neither of those things, but his political phenomenon might break the current neolib-neocon "left"-"right" consensus by forcing all the establishment Republicans into the Democratic Party, destroying its "legitimacy".

...

Thoroughly debunked, read the thread.

Giving workers more power oppresses them? Interesting.

Fully closed borders will destroy the value of domestic labor much, much faster.

I didn't say debt was a liability, shoring up debt is the way things the banking system functions right now.

The problem is the decline of serviceable debt that is caused by a decline in labor power. The US is getting outsourced because venture capital has moved it's investing to more profitable grounds. This isn't a controversial statement to make.

Capitalism is driven by profit, not policies and if the banks and multinationals profit, then a host nation also benefits to an extent, look up the term neo-colonialism.

Again, I didn't say they generate no value, I said they generate less value per dollar expense. In other words, each immigrant generates less value than a native payed at normal levels in the same job.

Taking away bargaining power from workers, and giving the power to take resultingly unfair jobs in lieu of even more unfair jobs abroad, is extremely oppressive.

Mass economic immigration.

I have no problem accepting trade or migration from economies in regulatory harmony with us, nor do I have any problem using countervailing duties or FairTrade subsidies to trade with economies lacking regulation. Allowing regulatory arbitrage to freely occur, however, is suicide.

American debt and equity sells as fast as we can issue it, hotter than any other financial asset on the market, other 1st-world instruments like from Europe are right behind us. I don't see demand shifting anytime soon.

Now one thing you certainly can say is that, while the global financial market is still growing, that rate of growth is indeed slowing down due to insane oversaturation, so the whole market (1st & 3rd-world alike) could eventually clog up.

Post yfw trump loses and trumpniggers get mad and butthurt

Welp.

Trump is going to make problems with corruption and money in politics worse, not take them out.

If you seriously believe that he is going to do any good for the country, other than accomplishing nothing and proving that politics is more than just memeing about high energy, then you are delusional.

Trump will bring Putinism with American characteristics to the US. There will be a whole new level of corruption.