The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[nomadologist]

The right-wing press bangs on about it because fear and anger sell newspapers and smiley happy multiculturalism doesn't.

Your grand conspiracy theory doesn't stack up: if UK business needs cheap immigrant labour and the UK press serves the interest of UK business, why do they spend so much time stirring up resentment of immigrants, thus putting pressure on the government to reduce their number?

That's not at all why the right bangs on about it--ask any fiscal conservative, they will gladly tell you that immigration is one of the top issues in the upcoming campaign, and that the policy decisions made now and in the near future are going to have a huge impact on the global economy in the coming years.

It's not a "conspiracy" so much as business as usual. In the U.S. at least.

 

[crackerjack]

That's not at all why the right bangs on about it--ask any fiscal conservative, they will gladly tell you that immigration is one of the top issues in the upcoming campaign, and that the policy decisions made now and in the near future are going to have a huge impact on the global economy in the coming years.

It's not a "conspiracy" so much as business as usual. In the U.S. at least.

I was talking specifically about the issue of free language lessons, but the wider picture is just as good. And my question still stands: since immigration is good for Evil Capitalist Inc, why would the press campaign against immigration? it's because their interests are not always the same as ECI's innit.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You don't see how keeping people poor and working for lower wages benefits the corporations that effectively decide government policy under neoliberal management?

As crackerjack says, the majority of exploitation can now take place a comfortably long distance away, since Britain's manufacturing industry is long dead and burried and now even services like call centres are being outsourced to places like India.

And in Britain itself, even if all the Poles and Czechs manage to open cafés or start plumbing businesses, or get work as au pairs or office temps, there's no shortage of Somalis or Banglaeshis to sweep floors and stack shelves, to put it bluntly. In any case, we got onto this talking about language, didn't we? If someone ends up either on the dole or working cash-in-hand for some friend of a cousin of an uncle, as a result of being unable to speak English, I can't see how that benefits either the Government or big corporations.

 

[crackerjack]

As crackerjack says, the majority of exploitation can now take place a comfortably long distance away, since Britain's manufacturing industry is long dead and burried and now even services like call centres are being outsourced to places like India.

as Slothrop says

 

[noel emits]

If someone ends up either on the dole or working cash-in-hand for some friend of a cousin of an uncle, as a result of being unable to speak English, I can't see how that benefits either the Government or big corporations.

It's not a problem for them either - they still buy stuff and the money to cover benefits comes mostly from tax on the middle class / middle income groups. People in this position pose no threat to big biz unless they become politically powerful as a group.

 

[crackerjack]

It's not a problem for them either - they still buy stuff and the money to cover benefits comes mostly from tax on the middle class / middle income groups..

They don't buy much, and corproations do still pay taxes, just about. Apart from News Intl.

 

[noel emits]

They don't buy much, and corproations do still pay taxes, just about. Apart from News Intl.

Taxes mean very little to massive corporations - they have a thousand and one ways of avoiding anyway.

Poor people still consume medical services, council services, building services, all kinds of things - the money for which generally makes it's way up to big companies. They really don't care how it gets there or where it came from.

 

[nomadologist]

I was talking specifically about the issue of free language lessons, but the wider picture is just as good. And my question still stands: since immigration is good for Evil Capitalist Inc, why would the press campaign against immigration? it's because their interests are not always the same as ECI's innit.

They don't campaign against immigration these days--even G.W. Bush (a fiscal conservative) didn't get on board with the "values conservatives" on their last anti-immigration bill...

 

[nomadologist]

As crackerjack says, the majority of exploitation can now take place a comfortably long distance away, since Britain's manufacturing industry is long dead and burried and now even services like call centres are being outsourced to places like India.

And in Britain itself, even if all the Poles and Czechs manage to open cafés or start plumbing businesses, or get work as au pairs or office temps, there's no shortage of Somalis or Banglaeshis to sweep floors and stack shelves, to put it bluntly. In any case, we got onto this talking about language, didn't we? If someone ends up either on the dole or working cash-in-hand for some friend of a cousin of an uncle, as a result of being unable to speak English, I can't see how that benefits either the Government or big corporations.

There's plenty of room in America for an underclass of laborers without green cards to be housed and exploited without the real benefits of being a citizen. You can't be on welfare if you're not in the U.S. legally.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Of course this whole immigration debate would be moot if capitalist imperialism didn't keep most of the world in a perpetually impoverished state of raw material production (shored up by puppet governments) and native industries were allowed to develop.

A typically one dimensional approach gavin. Try reading Douglass North et al: A Conceptual Framework For Interpreting Human History.

I don't deny that there is some truth in your argument, but its too simplistic and requires much greater depth IMO.

 

[crackerjack]

They don't campaign against immigration these days--even G.W. Bush (a fiscal conservative) didn't get on board with the "values conservatives" on their last anti-immigration bill...

They do in the UK, trust me. Or try spending a week in the company of this lot.
http://www.express.co.uk/home

 

[nomadologist]

What on earth does this article have to do with immigration policies in the U.S., Mr. Boshambles?

 

[nomadologist]

They do in the UK, trust me. Or try spending a week in the company of this lot.
http://www.express.co.uk/home

Yeah, sounds like U.K. conservatives have the same sort of ideological approach to immigration that was popular among conservatives in America about 10-15 years ago.

 

[noel emits]

I think in reality big business / banks / government in the US and UK (and most other places) are really in favour of immigration and increased population in general, whatever they say. The economic system is set up in such a way so that money and the benefits of production will tend to make it's way to their coffers, so more people means more ways to profit.

They have to allow a certain amount of money to circulate amongst the population but only enough so that people can feed and house themselves well enough to continue consuming and 'helping' others to consume, and also so the public don't revolt. They are not really concerned about the increased hardship and competition that comes with increases in population through immigration. Maybe the conservatives have a point there? We are all being exploited in this.

Now there's a very interesting gap there between conservative concerns and the agendas of big business.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

What on earth does this article have to do with immigration policies in the U.S., Mr. Boshambles?

Nothing. But it has everything to do with Gavins assertion that 'capitalist imperialism' is responsible for poverty and the failure of native industries in 'most of the world'.

The article argues that poverty and constraints on productive industry are largely due to the internal dynamics of the societies involved - as you'd know if you'd bothered to read it.

 

[nomadologist]

They are not really concerned about the increased hardship and competition that comes with increases in population through immigration. Maybe the conservatives have a point there? We are all being exploited in this.

I understand your point here and I think you're basically correct, but this part I've quoted is what's throwing me--it's not taken as a "given" in the U.S. that immigrants increase hardship. In fact, the only group that is directly impacted in a negative manner by (for example) Mexican and South American immigration into the U.S. seems to be inner-city blacks, who find themselves priced out of the lowest-wage jobs that used to be the mainstay of employment for entire black communities. This is leading to a lot of new racial tension among blacks and latinos.

 

[nomadologist]

Nothing. But it has everything to do with Gavins assertion that 'capitalist imperialism' is responsible for poverty and the failure of native industries in 'most of the world'.

The article argues that poverty and constraints on productive industry are largely due to the internal dynamics of the societies involved - as you'd know if you'd bothered to read it.

I did read it, and I did not find it at all compelling in making this assertion. Gavin also made his comment in the context of a broader discussion, so the article didn't seem to fit well here--wondered what you thought it said that was relevant is all...

 

[noel emits]

I understand your point here and I think you're basically correct, but this part I've quoted is what's throwing me--it's not taken as a "given" in the U.S. that immigrants increase hardship. In fact, the only group that is directly impacted in a negative manner by (for example) Mexican and South American immigration into the U.S. seems to be inner-city blacks, who find themselves priced out of the lowest-wage jobs that used to be the mainstay of employment for entire communities.

It's not taken as a given by everyone.

But, increased population puts a greater burden on resources and I don't think it's big business that foots the bill ultimately.

Also there isn't necessarily increased hardship, but if there were I contend that in reality it wouldn't be of much concern to the banks / government / corps (who are of course fairly indistinguishable at this point). It would most likely even be profitable to them - sell more antidepressants, build more prisons etc.

 

[Mr. Tea]

as Slothrop says

Oh, sorry about that. Must have confused your name with his because they sound so similar.

 

[nomadologist]

It's not taken as a given by everyone.

But, increased population puts a greater burden on resources and I don't think it's big business that foots the bill ultimately.

Also there isn't necessarily increased hardship, but if there were I contend that in reality it wouldn't be of much concern to the banks / government / corps (who are of course fairly indistinguishable at this point). It would most likely even be profitable to them - sell more antidepressants, build more prisons etc.

Ah, ok. I think you're right, and probably a little more true of the situation in the U.K. vis-a-vis the one in the U.S. (since we have more space literal and otherwise for newcomers here)