The Globalists talk out of bothsides of their faces

Globalists say: The white population is shrinking. We need immigration to replace workers.
Globalists say: Global warming is caused by people.
Globalists say: There are fewer workers needed, because manufacturing leans heavily on technology. We need universal basic income to pay all the people who will be put out of work.
Wouldn’t we want a smaller population to reduce global warming and since technology is replacing worker, we have less need for low skilled workers. With less population wages will rise, due to supply and demand?
Sup Forums what do you think.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/SpSMGxnpCmo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Globalists want to lower wages as much as possible. So they'll say "we need more immigrants" and "massive unemployment will happen because of robots" because both things cause lower wages. But Globalists can't openly say "we want to lower wages," because they'll get tremendous backlash.

Unfortunately for the Globalists and us, their low wage scheme doesn't generate economic growth, because legacy entitlement programs, low-quality immigrants, rising political unrest, and massive economic inefficiencies in the market, sets up the whole world to fail. This is why investment is so lackluster, and interest rates are effectively negative. This scheme isn't working.

Then again, bad ideas have taken control of elites before. Previous elites once thought a Great War would be the key to prosperity, and look at how it turn out. Didn't work out to well for them.

Nationalize the banks, end the fed

Gas the greedy powerhungry kikes race war now

U.S. Quality of life was rising.
President Lyndon Johnson significantly expanded the federal partnership in American social welfare, a partnership of the federal government with private and other public institutions to promote social welfare.
Once they started paying people not to work and penalizing married couples the U.S. quility of life declined. Trapping those in the social welfare system.

The Great Society didn't lower poverty but it made poverty comfortable. It also enabled Democrats to permanently utilize public goods for a patronage system. Those two things by themselves aren't what's going to blow up the US reserve currency. It's the massive increase in the proportion of low-skill labor combined with the Great Society programs which will effectively force the United States to sell an unsustainable amount of bonds. And that doesn't even begin to tie into the fact that the US will suffer a border dispute conflict with Mexico in the mid and late 21st century, nor does it describe the 1850s-level political instability that unchecked immigration has implemented in the American system.

Only our reserve currency status enables the status quo to continue.

Humans are creatures of peer pressure, because they want to be liked. Some powerful people believe that Globalism was a good idea, then the rest fell in line because they wanted to be liked by those powerful people. We are living in a decadent transitionry period where the cracks of the system are beginning to show. The first wave was the Nationalist-Trump wave, and the second wave will be the Socialist takeover of the Democratic Party. And that doesn't even begin to describe when the economy actually goes into recession again, which, because of our dysfunctional environment, we won't be able to muster a "New' New deal to save it.

What isn't said by anyone, however, is that certain empires like Rome DID make Cheap Labor work out to their advantage. Globalism HAS worked before. It just isn't going to work under this regime.

Alexis de Tocqueville
"A man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country." and “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Bullseye. Tocqueville is underrated.

One of my favorite quotes about Tocqueville is he argued that property ownership prevented the rise of Socialism because property owners as a whole are memetically immune to Socialist programming. In France at the time, the poor owned little property, while in America a thriving middle class was present. As a result, the Left-Wing despot Robespierre was able to take power simply because the Inequality gulf was so great. Stolypin, a Russian reformer, also was keenly aware that property ownership was the key to fighting against Communism, as people who owned property were natural opponents to the idea.

Millennials don't own, and can't own, property, which is why they naturally gravitate toward Socialism, as it is all reward no risk for them. This has to do with the economic inefficiency of the market which I discussed previously.

Brilliant guy, Tocqueville was.

Why don't people realize this.
I feel like i'm in bizarro world.

I've read on x by an"alien" poster that ET civilizations don't want to deal with humans because they are so overwhelmed by the desire to conform to peer groups, that they are dangerous to themselves and others. I don't know whether the "alien" poster is correct or not, but his point still is 100% accurate. It's the strong desire to conform, especially to a behavioral sink, which causes bad ideas to be implemented in society.

> "alien" poster is real or not

I love and hate this website. These posts are /pol in a nutshell .

Any Tocqueville books you guys recommend as an entry to his work?

Just read Democracy in America. He keenly compares our revolution to the failed French Revolution. Tragically, however, we have far more in common with Versailles France than we do with America circa 1830.

Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism

Jewish financial magic depends on a permanently increasing population.

UBI is a key part of the jewish endgame to enslave people to the state.

Also read Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

unfortunately, I think humanity is due for some monumental reduction of numbers. Plague, War, Starvation. Your guess is as good as mine. I don't say that optimistically. Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100.

These two points are spot on anons. Great analysis.

universal basic income (UBI)
Governments to borrow money to pay for (UBI).
millennials buy now pay later and are perpetually paying interest . (indentured servitude)
Your point has merritt, but I would substitute the word illuminati for Jewish, because many Jewish people would also be in indentured servitude.

As a globalist who's NOT a neoliberal, I think I can give you a better insight:

An increasing population is generally desirable, and natural increase in most western countries has dropped below replacement rate.

Global warming is caused by increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which in turn is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Population is one factor driving fossil fuel consumption, but it is not the main factor.

There are fewer workers needed for existing jobs, but we could still fairly easily employ everyone who wants a job. We don't need UBI - we need governments to stop trying to balance their budgets and instead start growing the economy again.

Currency issuing governments are able to borrow from themselves. As long as they stick to borrowing in their own fiat currency and they have an effective taxation system, there's absolutely no danger of hyperinflation.

Bill gates CO2
youtu.be/SpSMGxnpCmo

>As long as they stick to borrowing in their own fiat currency and they have an effective taxation system

It's not about taxes, it's about selling bonds and keeping high international demand in dollars. Taxes alone don't foot the bill.

I'm not saying taxes alone foot the bill.
But if you borrow from yourself, taxation is needed to prevent your money from losing its value.

Revolutionary USA (and indeed civil war CSA) suffered because they didn't have an effective taxation system. Weimar Republic had hyperinflation because it didn't have an effective taxation system, but subsequently fixed the problem by implementing one.

Selling bonds is functionally equivalent to borrowing from yourself - you still pay a similar amount of interest whether you're paying it to the bondholder or whichever bank ends up with the money after you've spent it.

Having a floating currency ensures there will always be sufficient international demand for it.

It's getting late in the US, but I'd love to debate this topic.

>Selling bonds is functionally equivalent to borrowing from yourself

No. Selling bonds distinctly involves private money, which isn't printed or taxed in circulation. Now. The government "can't go bankrupt" but what could happen is that it will have to sell a greater and greater amount of bonds to cover for its rising healthcare and entitlement programs (not to mention military,) which means there is less and less demand for these bonds as the supply increases. The government in response then can raise interest rate when it cannot sell bonds at its certain price, but there is only so much money people are willing to invest in bonds. We aren't at that threshold yet, but if we Import half the population of Mexico, we will get there. And then there is always the chance a Socialist takes charge.

The point being, as I've understood it, there is only a certain amount of demand for US treasuries, and open borders + LBJ = Disaster.

But here's where things can interesting for me. Suppose China and Russia get there act together and managed to implement a Gold Standard. This currency has tangible value, and isn't subject to inflation. People could immediately sell their bonds and put it back into the Eurasian Gold Standard, causing the value of the bonds to drop tremendously as the Gold Standard becomes a secure investment causing demand for the Gold standard-backed Yuan/Ruble to rise and demand for the dollar to fall. But that's a separate topic.

Correct me if I'm wrong. It'll make a big difference in my life if you can convince me that the US can endlessly afford to sell an exponential rate of bonds.

Its because Globalists just want everyone to have a shot at taking advantage of whites' societies. Nobody in Thailand is worrying about Globalism. Oh and Globalists dont care a fuck if the big carbon footprint white lifestyle is suddenly adopted by billions of third world trash even if does destroy their very planet.
Globalists ladies and gentlemen. Literally Satan

Thanks I didnt want to google UBI at the risk of being presented with something gross

Selling bonds is a way of soaking up excess demand for money by temporarily taking it out of circulation. So is the central bank's paying of interest on excess reserves that commercial banks have deposited with them. Things may happen in a different order, but the end result is the same.

The more money the government spends, the more money banks have deposited in them, so the more they can afford to buy bonds. So demand can easily keep pace with supply. And if it isn't, the government can always resort to QE.

But the goal should be to stimulate the economy rather than plug a hole in the budget. It's still important to maintain price stability. Once everyone's employed, you need to raise taxes, cut spending or raise interest rates.

A gold standard is a catastrophic policy. Instead of serving the people, governments end up serving gold at the expense of the people.

Inflation still applies under the gold standard, and there's also the risk of hyperinflation when you run out of gold. Indeed any pegging of currency can lead to hyperinflation. Keeping the rouble fixed against the dollar has already wrecked the Russian economy. Gorbachev lost the ability to maintain the peg, and it continued to wreak havoc under Yeltsin. It's not just Russia though - it's happened in other countries including Bolivia and Argentina.

You MMTers are so optimistic. Its cute.

I got to go bed. Was wrong about Gold and Inflation.

But briefly.

>The more money the government spends, the more money banks have deposited in them, so the more they can afford to buy bonds.

Just because they can afford bonds, doesn't mean they'll buy them.

>And if it isn't, the government can always resort to QE.

QE on government expenditures will inflate the economy like mad, leading to the ultimate doomsday scenario I fear.

"Cheap" Labor isn't actually "Cheap" it's government subsidized labor. Remove government subsidizes from "cheap" labor, and "cheap" labor becomes "cheap" again.

Thanks for the posts. Wish I had the energy to continue.

If banks don't buy the bonds, the government will just pay interest on the excess reserves of the banks and then buy the bonds itself, so it has the same effect.

QE on government expenditures will not inflate the economy when the extra money is simultaneously being taken out of the economy by the government paying interest on the banks' excess reserves (in addition to the large proportion taken out by taxation no matter how it gets into the economy). So it would not be inflationary as you assume. But when it does get too inflationary (as happens once everyone's employed) then you will have to cut spending or raise taxes, as I said. And (at least in the short term) there's also the option of raising interest rates, though IMO that's inferior to the option of raising tax rates.

...