|
Mikojan posted:Not if they continue getting everything for free. I had no idea Europe embraced full communism and has no stores
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 19:20 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:24 |
|
Venom Snake posted:This thread reads like It's full of first year economic students lecturing their friends at the student union about how we have to close the borders right now because it will destroy our economy. Phew, thank goodness we finally have a real economist here to set the issue straight: large groups of people consuming something while producing nothing are actually good for the economy.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 20:18 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Phew, thank goodness we finally have a real economist here to set the issue straight: large groups of people consuming something while producing nothing are actually good for the economy. Are we really at the point where we're going to try and spin welfare recipients consuming while producing nothing to be a net positive for the economy because somethingsomething Keynes? (Not directed at you, just this general train of thought)
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 20:27 |
|
It's not Keynesian, it's the broken window school of economics.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 20:34 |
|
steinrokkan posted:It's not Keynesian, it's the broken window school of economics. Windows will certainly be broken when the riots start in central Europe.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 20:44 |
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:It was simplistic. I will admit that. It was so because the tune of 'cause they're brown' was being played in D&D again, and if one group of brown people has integrated or is more accepted than another, then it's probably a greater matter than just 'brown people' again. As a longtime lurker in this thread I feel that the term "brown people" is highly toxic to discourse in D&D and is used as a silencing tactic almost without exception. I'm not talking about discussion of race and racism in general, or even the act of accusing other posters of harboring race prejudice; just the specific terms "brown people" and "browns". I know you're using it mainly to criticize that mindset, but I think that even using the term ironically plays into the hands of pissants who use these terms to poison the well whenever discussion of non-western cultures pops up.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 20:46 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:As a longtime lurker in this thread I feel that the term "brown people" is highly toxic to discourse in D&D and is used as a silencing tactic almost without exception. I'm not talking about discussion of race and racism in general, or even the act of accusing other posters of harboring race prejudice; just the specific terms "brown people" and "browns". I know you're using it mainly to criticize that mindset, but I think that even using the term ironically plays into the hands of pissants who use these terms to poison the well whenever discussion of non-western cultures pops up. Entirely agreed. I've seen it used to ridicule or silence opposition in D&D for nearly a decade at least. It utterly ruins discourse by attempting to drag too many issues down to simple othering or to ad hom and dismiss another poster by trying to re-frame their arguments in the most simplistic form of racism. Racism surely exists, both systemic and simplistic, and posters certainly do post racist or discriminatory things, but that term, as it is used, is utterly poisonous to any conversation here.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 21:04 |
|
steinrokkan posted:It's not Keynesian, it's the broken window school of economics. No because the refugees are people who exist no matter what the governments of Europe do. The choice faced by the EU is to spend lots of money to heavily militarise their borders to stop people crossing by shooting them, increase internal spying and surveillance to catch and deport these refugees or to create a real system for integrating them into Europe. There are no cheap options here, it's just a question of how many human rights and ethics you want to violate.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 21:53 |
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:Entirely agreed. I've seen it used to ridicule or silence opposition in D&D for nearly a decade at least. It utterly ruins discourse by attempting to drag too many issues down to simple othering or to ad hom and dismiss another poster by trying to re-frame their arguments in the most simplistic form of racism. Racism surely exists, both systemic and simplistic, and posters certainly do post racist or discriminatory things, but that term, as it is used, is utterly poisonous to any conversation here. It's used specifically because it poisons discussion. The people using it are not actually interested in debate and discussion, they're interested in cheap gotchas.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 22:20 |
-Troika- posted:It's used specifically because it poisons discussion. The people using it are not actually interested in debate and discussion, they're interested in cheap gotchas. I don't know how you can say this without a gigantic clothesiron with a picture of Alanis Morrissette on the side falling from heaven and burying you beneath it. Could it be true that Yaldabaoth the cruel demiurge rules this fallen material world?
|
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 22:24 |
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know how you can say this without a gigantic clothesiron with a picture of Alanis Morrissette on the side falling from heaven and burying you beneath it. Could it be true that Yaldabaoth the cruel demiurge rules this fallen material world? Now, see, there's the kind of top quality trolling which could be used by Effectronica and co. instead of resorting to cheap shots and race-baiting catchphrases. Thank you for proving my point.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 23:21 |
Liberal_L33t posted:Now, see, there's the kind of top quality trolling which could be used by Effectronica and co. instead of resorting to cheap shots and race-baiting catchphrases. Thank you for proving my point. Can you skip to the final part of your breakdown and rampage, please? Or just publish a manifesto about how stuffing hummus up their asses was too good for Gitmo detainees.
|
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 23:24 |
|
Venom Snake posted:This thread reads like It's full of first year economic students lecturing their friends at the student union about how we have to close the borders right now because it will destroy our economy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 23:31 |
|
-Troika- posted:It's used specifically because it poisons discussion. The people using it are not actually interested in debate and discussion, they're interested in cheap gotchas. Perhaps, but this is a problem on both sides of debate. Throwing out 'gotcha' talking points or replies that have no reply because of their lack of valid points. So yes, you can point to: Effectronica posted:Can you skip to the final part of your breakdown and rampage, please? Or just publish a manifesto about how stuffing hummus up their asses was too good for Gitmo detainees. But then I could point to:
|
# ? Sep 24, 2015 23:38 |
|
Tesseraction posted:But then I could point to: (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 02:36 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The notion that refugees will be a net benefit to society and a national economy by massively overloading the welfare system and spending government money in stores does not deserve much else. I know in D&D effort is supposed to be met with effort, but when the wall of text someone types up is so obviously retarded on its face, I think we can make an exception. Rather than speaking of them as an immediate net benefit, I read that post as talking about the refugees as an investment opportunity. Perhaps discourse in this thread would be improved if you didn't accuse posters of being mentally deficient because you read their posts uncharitably?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 06:51 |
|
murphyslaw posted:Rather than speaking of them as an immediate net benefit, I read that post as talking about the refugees as an investment opportunity. Perhaps discourse in this thread would be improved if you didn't accuse posters of being mentally deficient because you read their posts uncharitably? If they're supposed to be an investment, then it's going to be a relatively lovely one as there are enough people in the country already with language and other relevant skills and education who'd require way less investment to become productive. I'm not necessarily arguing against hosting refugees, but c'mon. If you start with the conclusion that letting everyone in must be great for the host country, it's possible to come up with rather silly arguments.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 09:13 |
|
you can choose between a good welfare system or open borders
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 09:19 |
|
mobby_6kl posted:If they're supposed to be an investment, then it's going to be a relatively lovely one as there are enough people in the country already with language and other relevant skills and education who'd require way less investment to become productive. It's true that in the short term there will be an economic hit, but without going too far into the emotive argument I don't believe we should put short-term profit over people. Now, this doesn't mean I advocate tanking an economy to pull in millions of people, but that an economy should be robust enough to survive events like these (assuming we work on practical quotas). This is the argument I believe Merkel is pushing for. Does that seem fair to you?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 09:49 |
|
There are millions of people who would love to live and work in the EU legally who are going to benefit the economy much more than refugees, especially as these people can help the economy right away instead of after many years like refugees. Most economic arguments to let refugees in are quite bad. I guess you could argue that refugees could still be a long-term positive economically in aging economies, assuming that after 5-10 years their employment rates are not that far below the general population (which is the case in some countries, but not in others). But in the short run? No way.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 10:49 |
|
Well I'm certainly more receptive to reasonable ethical arguments than bullshit economical ones.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 11:06 |
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:There are millions of people who would love to live and work in the EU legally who are going to benefit the economy much more than refugees, especially as these people can help the economy right away instead of after many years like refugees. Most economic arguments to let refugees in are quite bad. I guess you could argue that refugees could still be a long-term positive economically in aging economies, assuming that after 5-10 years their employment rates are not that far below the general population (which is the case in some countries, but not in others). But in the short run? No way. There is not inherently an economic argument to letting in refugees, no, but a combination of a moralistic/ethical argument (i.e. "we should not leave these people to die") combined with a rational understanding of investment economics (i.e. paying to train people who then become net contributors to an economy) does lead for a potential path to mutually benefit all involved. There is a fair argument that this may not work as efficiently as described, in which case other suggestions can be put forward, in the spirit of reasonable discussion. One thing I would ask is have we seen an example of documented immigration (via economic migration and processed refugees) destroy a developed economy? Or even an undeveloped one?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 11:26 |
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Lebanon doesn't have a million plus refugees because the government did a careful cost-benefit analysis as to how they will give them the most money. It doesn't matter. Helping refugees isn't about their profitability. Europe could take million newborn babies who don't produce anything for the next sixteen years or so and we could take the cost because we are the richest continent in the history of the world. It's an useless argument.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 12:19 |
|
I'd say Lebanon is an example of an 'undeveloped' (or perhaps 'underdeveloped' is the better term) economy that's coping with its astounding number of refugees, albeit at a lowering of national quality of life. I'd hope that our supposed 'developed' economies could manage a large fraction of those people, let alone the much smaller numbers currently being accepted, without seeing a drop in quality of life.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 12:27 |
|
namesake posted:No because the refugees are people who exist no matter what the governments of Europe do. The choice faced by the EU is to spend lots of money to heavily militarise their borders to stop people crossing by shooting them, increase internal spying and surveillance to catch and deport these refugees or to create a real system for integrating them into Europe. Sure, but let's not pretend that the current stages of whatever the process will be will be beneficial economically, which is what I referred to.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 12:33 |
|
Well, you say that, but it actually could be if you're in one of the net takers from the EU funding pot - Germany and Austria have threatened economic sanctions to countries that don't step up to the quota obligations, so it could end up actually being more economically viable to accept the refugees than to have your EU subsidies halted.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 12:36 |
|
Tesseraction posted:Well, you say that, but it actually could be if you're in one of the net takers from the EU funding pot - Germany and Austria have threatened economic sanctions to countries that don't step up to the quota obligations, so it could end up actually being more economically viable to accept the refugees than to have your EU subsidies halted. Since the options then are either spending money, or losing money, I don't see the benefit.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 12:40 |
|
The money you'd need to spend on refugees in the short term is unlikely to outweigh the financial assistance from the EU - going by the Grauniad's data (Google Spreadsheets) for example the Czech Republic received €1455.2million in 2011 (and the value probably isn't wildly different this year, I'd assume). While obviously not all of that money could be sanctioned or held back by Brussels, certainly a significant dent can be made should Germany prove to be vindictive.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 12:45 |
|
Meanwhile in Finland: http://i.imgur.com/UMFB2ix.jpg Pictured: the cultural delegation from Helsinki welcomes the country's new arrivals amidst cheers of "perkele!" and "eii saa peittaa!"
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 13:02 |
|
I don't like Children of Bodom's new direction.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 13:04 |
|
murphyslaw posted:Meanwhile in Finland: From Lahti, which is a different city in Finland. Helsinkites don't actually complain anywhere near as much as the rest of this country. Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34358410
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 13:04 |
|
Finland was barely on my radar before this thread. Now I have them categorized as backwards xenophobes with delusions of grandeur. Good job keeping the immigrants out of the barren jobless frozen tundra I guess.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:18 |
|
Freezer posted:Finland was barely on my radar before this thread. Now I have them categorized as backwards xenophobes with delusions of grandeur. Good job keeping the immigrants out of the barren jobless frozen tundra I guess.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:29 |
|
Freezer posted:Finland was barely on my radar before this thread. Now I have them categorized as backwards xenophobes with delusions of grandeur. Good job keeping the immigrants out of the barren jobless frozen tundra I guess.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:32 |
|
Tesseraction posted:I'd say Lebanon is an example of an 'undeveloped' (or perhaps 'underdeveloped' is the better term) economy that's coping with its astounding number of refugees, albeit at a lowering of national quality of life. I'd hope that our supposed 'developed' economies could manage a large fraction of those people, let alone the much smaller numbers currently being accepted, without seeing a drop in quality of life. The comparison isn't useful. Lebanon doesn't really provide anything for those people apart from land (which in fairness is at more of a premium in Lebanon), and isn't funding the expensive integration programs that Europe will presumably be expected to. The refugees depend entirely on the UNHCR to actually live. Europe is offering to feed, house and integrate refugees, whereas Turkey and Lebanon are offering campsites. That's fine considering their GDP, but it does invalidate the 'Why can't Europe be as generous as Lebanon' argument, as it would actually suck for everyone involved if we followed Lebanon's example.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:42 |
|
Tesseraction posted:The money you'd need to spend on refugees in the short term is unlikely to outweigh the financial assistance from the EU - going by the Grauniad's data (Google Spreadsheets) for example the Czech Republic received €1455.2million in 2011 (and the value probably isn't wildly different this year, I'd assume). While obviously not all of that money could be sanctioned or held back by Brussels, certainly a significant dent can be made should Germany prove to be vindictive. Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't take in refugees, I'm just saying that they won't provide a boost to the economy, which is what some posters claimed. You don't seem to be contradicting me at all because financial assistance would be received by members with or without refugees coming in so they aren't a factor in that.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:48 |
|
Tesseraction posted:There is not inherently an economic argument to letting in refugees, no, but a combination of a moralistic/ethical argument Thank you, this debate really doesn't have much of an economic platform, and it really is better as a moral/consequences debate. Along those lines, I ask "what can we do that will do the most good for our effort?" I would suggest that, long-term, it is more beneficial to both Europe (or any other distant host nation/region, like Australia or Japan) and the refugees themselves, that effort be focused on supporting refugees near their home nation and seeking to stabilize the problem area. We'd all feel like good people and pat ourselves on the back if we find them homes far away from their homelands in a strange and foreign culture and tell ourselves "we saved them." However, that essentially abandons the original problem (Syria, Iraq, Eritria, etc), which none of them show signs of being solved on their own any time soon. If we go with the precedent of letting unstable countries fall apart while taking in all their people, what force eventually restores these areas to usability? Would this not continually reduce the amount of productive land in use, globally speaking? Conflicts like this also tend to stress neighboring areas, such as Turkey going full retard and restarting the fight with the Kurds, Saudi/Iranian proxy war in Yemen, etc. Or other examples would be the social instability in South Africa caused by Zimbabwean economic migrants fleeing the failure of Mugabe's economic management, Zaire/DRC collapse, the Balkans in the 90's (which probably would have been worse without European intervention, not that there was much effort by Europe anyway). This is in addition to the culture shock to the refugees/migrants. Do they plan on adjusting to their new host's culture? If so, they're in for several years of difficult transition; if not, they're in for many years of likely being disadvantaged, as language and cultural barriers are harder to remove than simply waving a magic wand and invoking tolerance. Also, some of the people interviewed in articles have mentioned wanting to go back to Syria after the war, which makes perfect sense, as it is their home. If my home was caught up in a war, I'd want to still live there afterwards. So to sum up, accepting effectively unlimited (as that seems to be the moral argument I'm hearing here) refugees would be a short and long-term drain on host nations' resources and economies (because if spending millions training unemployed workers was a net boon to the economy, nations would have done it to their own unemployed without the need for language lessons), create social and cultural tensions, and ultimately not solve the problem. Instead, it slaps a bandage and a shot of morphine on the problem to make us feel good about ourselves. What do we do 5 years from now, when Syria is still a mess, Yemen has gone belly-up, Lebanon is at the breaking point, and Turkey and the Kurds are at each other's throats. All those people are going to look at this precedent and go to Europe, knowing that they will accept them "because they have to." Where does it end? Where is the incentive to actually have a functioning state and to fight for your home? People say the West shouldn't be the world police; fine, if that's the case, why should we be the world's babysitter?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:53 |
|
imo the refugees should be shipped to usa
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 14:57 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:imo the refugees should be shipped to usa gg, close thread
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 15:00 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:24 |
Griffen posted:So to sum up, accepting effectively unlimited (as that seems to be the moral argument I'm hearing here) refugees would be a short and long-term drain on host nations' resources and economies (because if spending millions training unemployed workers was a net boon to the economy, nations would have done it to their own unemployed without the need for language lessons), create social and cultural tensions, and ultimately not solve the problem. Instead, it slaps a bandage and a shot of morphine on the problem to make us feel good about ourselves. What do we do 5 years from now, when Syria is still a mess, Yemen has gone belly-up, Lebanon is at the breaking point, and Turkey and the Kurds are at each other's throats. All those people are going to look at this precedent and go to Europe, knowing that they will accept them "because they have to." Where does it end? Where is the incentive to actually have a functioning state and to fight for your home? People say the West shouldn't be the world police; fine, if that's the case, why should we be the world's babysitter? The "divine right of kings" does not mean monarchs are actually gods, nor does it apply to republican heads of state, and furthermore, it's been out of use for a century in Europe at a minimum. I just wanted to say that because I am unable to fully comprehend the villainous nature of your "welfare queens" argument extended to the whole world in order to justify whatever precise grade of inhumanity you wish to justify.
|
|
# ? Sep 25, 2015 15:05 |