Saturday, November 26, 2016

A recipe for inevitable conflict


If you want to know why very large numbers of Third World citizens want to migrate to the First World - Europe, the USA and Canada - by hook or by crook, look no further than this graphic.  (Click the image for a larger view.)




It's taken from the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report.  Market Watch reports:

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, a mere 0.7% of the global population owns nearly half the world’s wealth. At the other end, 73% of the population have less than $10,000 each.

. . .

Oxfam International’s Max Lawson, in a response to the study, says inequality has reached “shockingly” high levels, and changes need to be made.

“This huge gap between rich and poor is undermining economies, destabilizing societies and holding back the fight against poverty,” he said. “Governments must act now by cracking down on tax dodging, increasing investment in public services and boosting the income of the lowest paid.”

There's more at the link.

Of course, I disagree entirely with Mr. Lawson's prescription to solve the problem.  It's typically socialist - use the state to 'level the playing field' by taxing the hell out of the rich and 'redistributing' wealth to the poorer sections of society.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work.  It's never worked in a single country where it's been tried.  Everyone ends up paying crippling tax levels to support a social services infrastructure that treats everyone equally badly, rather than equally well.  (Classic examples are Britain's National Health Service or Canada's Medicare, which deliver generally good levels of care, provided you're prepared to wait your turn in a very long line to get them.  If you die before your turn comes up, or before there's budget available to pay for your needs [which may have to be deferred into the next fiscal year, because they've run out of money this year] . . . that's just too bad.)

Nevertheless, the pyramid shows a grim reality.  The phrase 'follow the money' is as applicable in economics as it is anywhere else.  Trade will go to places where there's money to pay for it.  Economic development will occur in places where there's money to pay for it.  Goods and services will flow to, and be produced in, places where there's money to pay for them.  That excludes most of the Third World, by default;  yet the population of the Third World has doubled, then doubled again, since the Second World War.  There's no employment for these people, no prospects, and no hope.  Is it any wonder that they, too, are 'following the money' and trying to get into more prosperous nations, by hook or by crook?

I'm not arguing that the rich should lose what they've rightfully earned, through their own hard work and expertise.  However, I'll certainly argue that where they've weighted the scales in their own favor, at the expense of everyone else (through measures such as tariffs, preferential taxation, regulatory capture, and so on), those imbalances need to be undone and fair dealing restored, so that everyone else has the same opportunity to progress.  I'm absolutely opposed to legislating equal outcomes, but all in favor of ensuring equal opportunity.  (Left-wing and progressive elements usually disagree - see, for example, this article.)

I'm also in favor of preserving national identity and securing national borders, so that those within a nation have the first and best chance of improving their lot using the resources that belong to them.  Let those from other nations, who want to do likewise, try to improve their own countries to provide greater opportunities.  They should not be allowed to invade richer countries, bringing nothing to contribute, but expecting everything that they lack to be given to them (and rioting or burning down what's provided if they're not satisfied with it).  Those aren't refugees.  They're leeches.  Let's treat them as such.

Peter

9 comments:

Joseph said...

I recall seeing news videos of refugees refusing bottled water that was marked with the Red Cross, which is an identifying symbol without religious affiliation.

Anonymous said...

Common sense. And shared by the majority of the people in Western countries. At least when they talk in private among themselves. The media, the politicians, academics, migration profiteers, on the other hand ...

Well, I used to think the West had no chance against our corrupt elites. The election of Trump has given me some hope, however. Marine Le Pen next year in France would be an even greater upset, maybe not impossible after all.

Germany (where I happen to live) is done for, domination of globalists, genderistas, marxists is too thorough and deep. If you were planning on seeing Germany's tourist destinations some day, don't hold off any longer.

Come visit the Rhine and the Black Forest next summer. Natural and architectural beauties are still intact. Don't wait for some reversal that never comes. Ignore the eyesores (hijabs and niqabs) as best you can -- a distraction to you the tourist, a harbinger of doom for us who live here.

Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden are rapidly Islamizing. Kicking out millions of Muslims only possible if willing to shed much blood. Won't happen.

James Buchanan said...

The refugees refused that water usually because of religion. Cross vs cresent. The red Cross is associated with the Christian religion, and so on. They being of other sects, remember that some may taint the gift. As Americans have done. Not, saying, that they have done the same, but the news publisish our foibles and actions better.

Paul said...

lesse, Cuba and Venezuela are both examples if countries that flatten the rich. Course it just made criminals rich, but the rich went away. I guess there are good rich and bad rich. Who knew.

Anonymous said...

There are, of course, some complicating factors:

1) "Money", as a social construct, actually acts in some ways as a deterrent to "wealth-equity", especially on a within-a-nation basis but also internationally. It largely-enables a very-rapid (too-rapid, some would say) and all-too-easily distorted (or "mis-directed") transfer of material and social wealth.

It's been said, for instance, that, if you could somehow contrive to re-distribute all of the money within the U.S. internal economy to the entire population of the Republic in exactly equal amount to each individual on a given Sunday early-afternoon, with no other notable changes in the nation, it would all flow back to almost precisely where it is at present by not later than the following Saturday night at midnight - rather amusing, perhaps somewhat-apocryphal or at least exaggerated, but there seems likely to be an at-least-even chance of some truth, there...and, as stated, it would seem to operate that way to a large extent externally, among nations.

I'm not even sure it's entirely desirable - much less possible - to overcome that sort of "flow"...

2) As stated, the shifting of populations towards "something better (or at least easier) is both "normal" and natural. It's the embodiment of the advice given to the habitues of places like sub-Saharan Africa by the (long-deceased) howling stand-up comic Sam Kinison: "MOVE! GO WHERE THE FOOD AND WATER ARE!".

That kind of flow is even more unstoppable than that of money - and, one way or another, it'll surmount any barriers placed in its path, in whole or in part...

Nations that desire to retain any semblance of their national integrity - and to do the only "service" that any national government really MUST, therefore, deliver to its native population - must do all they can, of course, to stem or at least carefully-regulate that flow...especially in the case of the economically-more-successful national-entities.

This last is the essential truth, of course, behind Donald Trump's statements on immigration, both illegal and lawfully-permitted.

3) In actual, real-live-World, fully-useful terms, there just simply IS.NO.SUCH.THING. as a "level playing-field", economically, among/between nations; hey, it's surpassingly-rare when there's even a close-approximation of such a thing between regions within a single nation, except in some of the wealthier ones, and even THAT tends to go away, mostly pretty-quickly. This doesn't mean, of course, that "people of good will" should not try to move closer to such circumstances - provided they don't do damage to their own in doing so; just that it's highly-unlikely to work out anything closely resembling such - and even more unlikely to last very long even if it happens to do so.

"Trade-equity" is a really nice idea, an ideal to be worked-towards whenever feasible - but, the work will be on-going and never-ending...and will mostly fall short of intentions and/or the desired effects. Doesn't mean it's not worth the efforts - just don't get your hopes too high. There will be a lot of on-going counter-efforts, always...

We seem to learn (those of us actually paying attention, of course) ever-increasing amounts about what doesn't work - at least not well-enough to be worth pursuing further...still got a lotta work to do, though, on establishing - and then closely-pursuing - what does work, even if only in the relatively-short-term.

J. S. Bridges
Wilmington, NC

JK Brown said...

This is based on the perception rather than reality. It is driven by the socialist propaganda. In any case, these migrants are voting for imperialism by moving to places governed by better governments.

This Ted talk is of a professor looking at the data instead of mining the data

In 2014, 50% of consumers able to buy an airline ticket life outside of the West. This will grow projected to be 73% of consumers outside the West in 2035. The poverty hump is moving on up to the right side, by both wealth accumulation (traditionally hard in kleptocratic non-West) and via reduction in cost of goods and services through capitalism.

https://youtu.be/Sm5xF-UYgdg?t=1014

Quentin said...

You are mistaken about the NHS. You write 'provided you're prepared to wait your turn in a very long line to get them.' Yes, emergency cases do take priority, but you can buy additional health insurance - it's about £1200 (approx US$1600) a year for me, a middle-aged male - and primary healthcare is excellent.

ChrisRet said...

Had a chance to see the difference between US and Canadian health care, last week, when I visited relatives in the US for Thanksgiving.

Canada - friend tells me: "went to see surgeon today about my shoulder. Complete tear of tendon in shoulder. Only option is surgery and keep it mobile until surgery. Wait time is 9-10 months one month with arm in sling and no driving, start looking for a good physiotherapist off work at least 6 weeks."

USA - relative tore his meniscus in one knee, in a lot of pain. Went to Doctor, and was scheduled and completed surgery WITHIN A WEEK.

In Canada, it is ILLEGAL to get health insurance for medical care. You can get insurance for dental and drugs, but not for anything that would be covered under publicly insured health services. If you can pay out of pocket for service (usually by going to the USA), you are forbidden by law from getting insurance on those costs.

In USA, hearing about the cost of Obamacare, I had to laugh at how low it is. Compared to what we pay.

Here in Ontario (my province), I pay a lot more for my 'Free Health Care", but mostly it is hidden. The average cost is almost $6000 a year, and that cost is for everyone -- the working stiff is paying for the retirees, unemployed, youth, etc. You have to dig to find out how much it costs, but here are some examples:

- all companies have to pay a health insurance premium based on their gross Ontario salary, of between 1 and 2% of that salary - details here http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/eht/ -- so if you have 8 employees making on average $50,000 a year, your payroll tax will be $7800, or $975 per employee.

- personal income taxes - if you make more than $45,283, rate is ~30%, and rise sharply to 53.53% of income over $220,000. That $50,000 employee is paying $15,000 in combined (federal & Ontario) tax.

- there is no joint (family) tax savings

- tax on all sales and services as a value added tax, at a rate of 13% in Ontario - HST (Harmonized Sales Tax)
Exclusions for food, but almost everything else is covered - a used car at $20,000 has additional tax of $2600 to register it, and they will tell you how much it is worth, so don't try to short them.

- land transfer tax on real estate
-- From $55,000 to $250,000 X 1% of total property value
-- From $250,000 to $400,000 X 1.5% of total property value
-- From $400,000 up X 2% of total property value -- or $8000 on a $400,000 home. The average home price is $518,000 but it is skewed by crazy high prices in Toronto.

- sky rocketing electricity rates with time of use, so when you need it most, it will be most expensive. Rates depend on density,
with low-density clients, with HST tax, paying over 27 cents per kWh; medium-density clients pay 25.5 cents per kWh.

- sky rocketing water+sewage charges - these are on an upward trajectory with no sign of coming down

- very high fuel taxes - around $1.00 a liter currently (about $4/US gallon). In Florida last week, I saw stations selling at under $2 a US gallon. Why so high here? It's mostly taxes and higher distribution costs.
-- federal government charges an excise tax of 10 cents a litre
-- Ontario adds a road tax of 14.7 cents a litre
-- the excise tax and the road tax are IN TURN taxed by adding HST of 13% to that tax
-- a new Ontario cap & trade carbon tax of 4.3 cents per litre is coming next year PLUS the HST will apply to that tax

- so called "Eco Fee" on every electronic item, tires, oil filters and oil, etc - basically anything they deem to need it. The fee depends on the item - large screen TVs and larger tires are more expensive. PLUS the HST applies to the Eco Fee

- SIN taxes on tobacco, alcohol, et cetera plus HST on the SIN tax. Pay over $25 for a 750ml bottle of rum.

- 'gaming' revenue, which preys on the ignorant and the elderly -- run by the government

Sigh.

Clinton J said...

In America, we mow the grass instead of using it to produce food (veggies, fruit tree's, grazing animals, etc). But we do that because we are wealthy!

I can't help but think that there are areas of the world that are desolate because of they way it has been farmed... but I also can't help but think that if regenerative agricultural practices were put into place, that perhaps wealth could be created? (Permaculture, Joel Salatin, Mob grazing - Greg Judy, etc)

Of course my understanding is that in Africa, the people rarely try... because if they are successful, somebody will just come and take away whatever it is that they worked hard to create... so why even try?

Peter, am I close?