Shame For Britain As BNP Win European Parliament Seats , page 18
Pages: <<  15    16    17    18    19    20  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 07:56 AM by gpzrd350
reply to post by LoneWeasel



"My own view is that Nationalist politics are simply outdated. They don't work any more because the concept of nation has changed. It might be regrettable to some degree, we may lose some things that we held dear, but on the other hand globalisation gives us so much in return."

Globalization is based on David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. One of the central assumptions of that theory is that capitalists will reemploy their capital in their own country to produce a product with a comparative advantage.

The reality is that capitalists often don't keep their capital in their own country. They move it to other countries and build factories in those countries with lower wages.

Globalisation has effectively turned into wage arbitrage. Essentially a race to find the cheapest labour around the globe with the poorest and least skilled in the West being the chief losers because the factories they used to work in are now in China.

The chief winner of globalisation are the holders of capital - people with money who can invest it in the parts of the world where returns are higher due to lower input costs (primarily cheaper non British labour). The chief loser is the British worker at the bottom. The net effect is that the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.

"The reason Griffin stance on immigration is so absurd is that it suggests that by removing the immigrant workers you remove the problem. You don't. In effect you create an economic disaster for the country by removing cheaper labour and forcing running costs up wildly. That isn't a sustainable way forward."

Perhaps but perhaps not. It was predicted that the introduction of the minimum wage would have the effect of costing jobs and wildly driving up costs. It did neither.

You appear to be assuming that those goods and services which will revert to their previous higher cost could be supplied from abroad at a cheaper rate or are for export.

Many, many types of goods and services can be neither exported nor imported i.e. the services sector in general. When you pay an Eastern European waiter less than a British waiter that isn't creating a more competitive Britain. It is merely redistributing wealth away from the bottom of society upwards.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the vast majority of immigrants who work in the UK, work in the domestic service sector and haven't reduced the cost or increased the competitiveness of UK exports in any significant way.

Globalisation has made the rich, richer. The poor have watched their manufacturing jobs disappear to China to be replaced with low paid service jobs.

Mass immigration into the UK has pushed the wages of the lowest paid in down.

The BNP is the only party that isn't ignoring the fact that British people at the bottom are the ones who are being squeezed.

Of course the Oxbridge dominated Tory, Labour and Liberal parties don't want to pay any attention to the plight of the working class - they are the ones enjoying the fruits of capitalisation and mass immigration.



[edit on 12-6-2009 by gpzrd350]



reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 08:16 AM by gpzrd350
reply to post by blueorder



There has never been immigration on such a scale, and when some try and say ridiculous things referencing events over a thousand years ago, such as the romans, do they think it was a non violent migration then......

Europe is not having enough children and we are facing a demographic squeeze in the future when the West will have too few people working and too many old people to support.

Western governments seem to see the solution as mass immigration. This has the unfortunate side effect that many Europeans do not welcome the wave of non European immigrants and the introduction of mass non European culture and relgion in their own homelands.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to implement economic policies that encourage Europeans to have more children?

Surely that would avoid the demographic timebomb and also respect the wishes of a significant proportion of the European population who do not want mass immigration from the third world?


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 08:25 AM by gpzrd350
reply to post by Laurauk



Although a few immigrants do work in the domestic service, alot more work in the construction industry, petro chemicals industry etc, at a subsidised wage related pay to that off British Workers.

The UK domestic construction industry, by definition, does not export, so paying cheap wages to immigrants merely benefits the shareholders' of those constrction companies at the expense of working class British workers.

Effectively a redistribution of UK wealth from the bottom upwards.

The Petrochemical industry does export so effectively the UK GDP does get bigger but still the working class workers at the bottom are being cut out.

Wealth is being created and also redistributed upwards.


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 08:25 AM by blueorder
Originally posted by gpzrd350
Europe is not having enough children and we are facing a demographic squeeze in the future when the West will have too few people working and too many old people to support.

Western governments seem to see the solution as mass immigration. This has the unfortunate side effect that many Europeans do not welcome the wave of non European immigrants and the introduction of mass non European culture and relgion in their own homelands.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to implement economic policies that encourage Europeans to have more children?

Surely that would avoid the demographic timebomb and also respect the wishes of a significant proportion of the European population who do not want mass immigration from the third world?


you are bang on the money, of course.

The problem with this is twofold

* Immigration is viewed as a plus by a liberal/left political class which hates British (I am talkin from a British example) history, culture, tradition etc- the promotion of large scale immigration has allowed the notion of multi culturalism to be promoted to help these people attack the host nation.

* The same liberal/left political class has promoted the politics of family disfunction, abortion, dismissal of marriage etc since the 1960s- as you say, birth rates are now low.

It will take massive movement on behalf of such people to rectify this situation- clearly, like you say, promoting bigger families in the indigenous/host populace was the obvious and most effective (whether financially or socially/culturally), but we are dealing with a class which is mired in the above two mindsets


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 08:36 AM by Laurauk
reply to post by gpzrd350



And why are the working class being cut out?

Because Employers are using Immigrant workers as cheap labour. UK Employees have to be payed the minimum wage. Where employers can pay immigrant workers what ever they like, while trying to cover this by Stating that they also pay for the immigrant workers rent. Which in somecases, those immigrant workers live in none more less than a squatters pad.

Emplyers are getting away with this and they know they are.



reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 09:40 AM by bharata
reply to post by Laurauk



You are absolutely 1000% correct!!

It is the employers who are employing foreigners and not British citizens. The heads of these companies are probably British so why is no anger directed towards them?

I do think the government is partly to blame for the following reasons.

The government do not pay enough attention to the people who will then look for some one who will, this creates a situation where the people can be easily manipulated.

The lesson from history, Hitler was able to take control because of the failings of the last rulers. He gave the people pride and strength but was himself tainted by, no other way to put it madness.

I will read up on the BNPs policies as soon as I can but does anyone know what they would do if they came to power.

Hypothetically speaking, If I was the head of a party like the BNP I would probably bring in racial tests to see if you are British, Aryan etc. Now how many of you BNP supporters would like it if they could profile your DNA and say hmm sorry you are not racially pure enough. Then you would be the outsider.

Also people are not stupid ( I know some of you would beg to differ). Everyone knows what the BNP is about and what they stand for. If you voted for them because they put a leaflet through your front door!! Need I say more. If you dont like any parties then dont vote.


[edit on 12-6-2009 by bharata]


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 10:07 AM by Laurauk
reply to post by bharata



As someone said on a Programe last night that I watched, and this was a ordinary citizen, and not an mp, reporter or anyone on the discussion panel,:

You cannot blame the fringe, extreme parties or the main parties for this.

There has and will always be Racism in the UK. No matter which party incites this.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Laurauk]


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 10:42 AM by LoneWeasel
Originally posted by gpzrd350
reply to
post by LoneWeasel




Globalisation has effectively turned into wage arbitrage. Essentially a race to find the cheapest labour around the globe with the poorest and least skilled in the West being the chief losers because the factories they used to work in are now in China.

The chief winner of globalisation are the holders of capital - people with money who can invest it in the parts of the world where returns are higher due to lower input costs (primarily cheaper non British labour). The chief loser is the British worker at the bottom. The net effect is that the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.




I don't dispute your points about capitalism and the widening gap between rich and poor. The latter is indeed indisputable. I'm simply saying it isn't a race issue. It's an economic issue. What the BNP does is take the theory that you have put forward, and pin the blame for it not on the holders of capital but on the immigrants themselves.

For sure there is a huge problem with widening wage gaps and the advancing wealth of the very rich compared to the increased poverty at the other end of the scale. But the idea that you can simply boot out an entire population of settled workers in order to reduce that gap is simply idiotic. You might be dealing with a symptom but the sickness will remain.

I would advocate a more reasoned economic redistribution based on higher taxes for the rich and lower for the poor, greater welfare payments and subsidies for deserving, not undeserving industries. The reason I advocate that is because economically those ideas make sense to me. The BNP's arguments - quite aside from the utterly loathsome ethical barbarism they display - don't make any sense economically at all.


Mass immigration into the UK has pushed the wages of the lowest paid in down.

The BNP is the only party that isn't ignoring the fact that British people at the bottom are the ones who are being squeezed.

Of course the Oxbridge dominated Tory, Labour and Liberal parties don't want to pay any attention to the plight of the working class - they are the ones enjoying the fruits of capitalisation and mass immigration.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by gpzrd350]


Speaking as an Oxbridge educated Liberal voter, I can tell you my fruit bowl, and those of the majority of my university peers, remains pretty much bare of the "fruits of capitalisation". We didn't have special classes set up on How To Take Advantage of People Worse Off Than Oneself, believe it or not. Neither was my education paid for. I worked for it. But actually I take offence not at the generalisation but at the absurd over-simplification of the problem.

LW


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 12:47 PM by gpzrd350
reply to post by LoneWeasel



Speaking as an Oxbridge educated Liberal voter, I can tell you my fruit bowl, and those of the majority of my university peers, remains pretty much bare of the "fruits of capitalisation". We didn't have special classes set up on How To Take Advantage of People Worse Off Than Oneself, believe it or not. Neither was my education paid for. I worked for it. But actually I take offence not at the generalisation but at the absurd over-simplification of the problem.


No need to take offence, not unless you are an MP. I was talking about Oxbridge educated MPs, not Oxbridge graduates in general. No offence was intended, not unless you are an MP. I apologise for not making myself clearer.


But the idea that you can simply boot out an entire population of settled workers in order to reduce that gap is simply idiotic. You might be dealing with a symptom but the sickness will remain.


I presume that the sickness is 'racism'. Is that correct?


I would advocate a more reasoned economic redistribution based on higher taxes for the rich and lower for the poor, greater welfare payments and subsidies for deserving, not undeserving industries. The reason I advocate that is because economically those ideas make sense to me.


If talented people and capital are allowed to freely move from country to country, then they will simply leave the high tax UK and then the total tax revenue will actually drop. Maryland in the USA has recently found that taxing millionaires at a high rate leads to missing millionaires who have simply moved to another state.

Subsidies are illegal under EU law except on the grounds of national security.

The reason why the poor get saddled with much of the taxes is because they can't do much about it, unlike the rich whose person and capital are often mobile.


reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 06:30 AM by Power_Semi
reply to post by Laurauk




Plus the employers save a fortune in National Insurance contributions. If you employ someone earning even minimum wage the employee pays approaching double figure % of their earnings in NI contributions.

The employer pays I think around 13% of the employees income as NI contributions.

So you go from say 300 British workers all paying tax & NI & the employer paying NI, to 300 cheap labour workers paying zero tax, zero NI, and the employer paying zero NI.

You go from 300 people using services & contributing to pay for them, to 600 people using the Health service, education, transport, etc, you have a big chunk of 300 people claiming benefits, & no money coming in to cover any of it.

Therefore the rest of the taxpayers pick up the bill & the winners are the employers who's workforce is now subsidised by the taxpayer.

More Labour lying, cheating, and deceit.


reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 02:12 PM by bigyin
I hope its not regarded as ot, but I just read this article after being directed from Rense

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Some of the feedback seems to be saying that uncontrolled immigration is to blame for California going bust.

It also says that wealthy people have been leaving the area taking money and business with them, because they are fed up supporting illegal aliens.

This is the sort of future the BNP are warning us about surely ?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by bigyin]
Pages: <<  15    16    17    18    19    20  >>    ^^TOP^^