Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Er, you do know that 25% is a *minority*, right? As in, 75% of new businesses, by virtue of your own sources, are NOT started by immigrants? If you need remedial math lessons, though, you'll need to find them elsewhere.
How much of a percentage of the population do you think is immigrants? It's about 13% of the population is foriegn born. So they found new companies at rates far higher than the native born population. That math remedial enough for you?

I didn't say I would, I presented the consequences of what would be necessary - ie, the whole package of the deal. I specifically chose a distasteful aspect, to counter the cherry-picked perspective of "Norway is socialist, so we can be too."
Now you're just lieing. You said we could do the Norway model if we also did their immigration policy. So not only intellectually bankrupt morally as well.
 
None of your other suggested causes would have any affect if applied outside of the context of free market capitalism. It's the first prerequisite - even if you're a motivated entrepreneur, you aren't going to get anywhere if you're trapped in a system that is hostile to the entrepreneurial endeavor.
To which my response is that socialism isn't hostile to entrepreneurial endeavor, but rather the excesses of late stage capitalism as practiced in America. Socialism does not care if you start a restaurant or how successful it becomes, it only cares if you're paying your taxes into the system to provide for the welfare of the state and it's people. Or do you think there are no small businesses in Norway? Hell, Peppes Pizza was started by two American immigrants in Norway and it serves 9 million pizzas a year in 11 cities, being the largest chain in the region. I've even been told it's decently good by a friend who visited Norway for a Ghost concert. It's clear that the system allows for even widespread successes in the country.

My suggested confounds are not the end all/be all of potential confounds either. I'm not an economist, nor a sociologist; I simply have some experience with research methods... and the point of data analysis is to find such issues. Apparently no one has done such work over there for... whatever reason. I'm wondering if we're just not finding it because it's not published in English.

Also... did you READ that article? "Irreversible demographic trend"? "Genuine refugees"? "...skeptical of the ‘thoroughly socialist’ Church of Norway"? "No-go zones" in Sweden? She talks like a white nationalist, where she's more afraid of sharing the streets with someone of a different culture than if they could potentially participate in her nation's way of life. No wonder there is a "violent and lawless underground"; the people aren't being allowed to get an education so they COULD become part of their society. I haven't heard so many dog whistles outside of a fucking pet store.

Maybe don't quote a magazine owned by the same guys who run The Daily Telegraph next time?
 
Immigrants start 25% of all businesses in the US (it's only 5% in fly over states but almost 40% in places like New York, California, and New Jersey) but that doesn't necessarily ring true of immigrants to other countries. We'd have to do a metadata analysis of business start-ups in other countries to compare the rate in which immigrants start businesses in those countries to ours. For all we know, there could be a confound for why immigrants don't start businesses at the same rate in other countries (if that's true at all, we don't have data on hand for that). It could even be true that having low rates of acceptance is actually harming the economies of other countries.
I wish I could find it (my googling failed) but one of the reactions to that report (or possibly part of the report itself) also mentioned how there was a VAST disparity in whom is employed by businesses started by immigrants vs non-immigrants. What I mean is that Immigrant-started businesses tend to employ family members, and that's it. They don't create jobs for others, just themselves, whereas while this is also true for non-immigrant started businesses, the percentages are vastly different. It was something like 80%+ of immigrant-started businesses employ only family, whereas it was below 50% for the other case (or my numbers could be off by 20% either way, or more, but the general point was the same). So if talking about the job creation power of small businesses, the numbers went completely opposite.

I apologize for only summarizing the findings. This WAS from last year, and my initial googling failed, so take my assertions in that context.
 
I wish I could find it (my googling failed) but one of the reactions to that report (or possibly part of the report itself) also mentioned how there was a VAST disparity in whom is employed by businesses started by immigrants vs non-immigrants. What I mean is that Immigrant-started businesses tend to employ family members, and that's it. They don't create jobs for others, just themselves, whereas while this is also true for non-immigrant started businesses, the percentages are vastly different. It was something like 80%+ of immigrant-started businesses employ only family, whereas it was below 50% for the other case (or my numbers could be off by 20% either way, or more, but the general point was the same). So if talking about the job creation power of small businesses, the numbers went completely opposite.

I apologize for only summarizing the findings. This WAS from last year, and my initial googling failed, so take my assertions in that context.
Immigrants who start businesses mainly do so because it's the best employment they can find because no one will hire them for work they qualify for. Jobs created by the unemployable to hire themselves and other unemployables is still job creation, even if those jobs are lower paying and offer fewer benefits than other jobs, and is preferable to the generally under the table situation undocumented immigrants are often forced to endure. You also tend to see differences on who they hire based on where they are from; immigrants from some countries (like Mexico) like to keep it in the family, while folks from Africa are generally more willing to hire other Africans even if they are unrelated.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
How much of a percentage of the population do you think is immigrants? It's about 13% of the population is foriegn born. So they found new companies at rates far higher than the native born population. That math remedial enough for you?
It still doesn't have the effect on the bottom line you guys are implying it does.
Now you're just lieing. You said we could do the Norway model if we also did their immigration policy. So not only intellectually bankrupt morally as well.
Clearly you're also unable to discern rhetorical devices as well. Anyone (well, perhaps any native-english speaker, that I'll grant) would be able to discern that I was intentionally presenting the unpalatable as part and parcel with the (largely imaginary) socialist utopia everyone's so enamored with.

To which my response is that socialism isn't hostile to entrepreneurial endeavor, but rather the excesses of late stage capitalism as practiced in America. Socialism does not care if you start a restaurant or how successful it becomes, it only cares if you're paying your taxes into the system to provide for the welfare of the state and it's people. Or do you think there are no small businesses in Norway? Hell, Peppes Pizza was started by two American immigrants in Norway and it serves 9 million pizzas a year in 11 cities, being the largest chain in the region. I've even been told it's decently good by a friend who visited Norway for a Ghost concert. It's clear that the system allows for even widespread successes in the country.
It's "clear" from a single anecdotal example?

But I'm willing to concede that Norway is not overly business-hostile (other than the inherent dampening effect of overtaxation, naturally), as I used a handy comparison tool in heritage.org to compare Norway and the US, and got results that surprised me. Norway's overall economic freedom score comes close to that of the US, and even scored higher in some subcategories (notably property rights in particular). And if it's notoriously-libertarian Heritage that's saying that, that goes even further.

Also... did you READ that article? "Irreversible demographic trend"? "Genuine refugees"? "...skeptical of the ‘thoroughly socialist’ Church of Norway"? "No-go zones" in Sweden? She talks like a white nationalist, where she's more afraid of sharing the streets with someone of a different culture than if they could potentially participate in her nation's way of life. No wonder there is a "violent and lawless underground"; the people aren't being allowed to get an education so they COULD become part of their society. I haven't heard so many dog whistles outside of a fucking pet store.
I didn't read to closely between the lines for such things. Maybe because I'm used to being told by some folks around the forums here that even europe's right-wing is left of our left wing.
 
But I'm willing to concede that Norway is not overly business-hostile (other than the inherent dampening effect of overtaxation, naturally), as I used a handy comparison tool in heritage.org to compare Norway and the US, and got results that surprised me. Norway's overall economic freedom score comes close to that of the US, and even scored higher in some subcategories (notably property rights in particular). And if it's notoriously-libertarian Heritage that's saying that, that goes even further.
I think it's more "notoriously funded by the coal industry, tobacco industry, and Koch brothers" Heritage foundation and less "libertarian". Not to mention in bed with Trump and his administration.
Bernie can go fuck himself.
Yeah, he can. Seriously, what the fuck Bernie? You could have asked Harris and she'd have made you her VP pick in a heartbeat.
 
Bernie is like the dude who talks shit about the Democrats' gas-guzzling van and prides himself on not owning a car, but speed-dials them to ask for a lift when he needs to buy a new couch or move some stuff out of his cube. He treats the party like a jock treats a fat girl - can't get enough when he needs something, but afterwards is ashamed to be seen with her.
 

Dave

Staff member
Bernie has made it official.
And I'm not sure how I feel about it. I still love the guy and he's the only one in the last election that had any sort of a plan. Whether you agreed with him or not, he's the only one who didn't dodge questions and had a concrete plan to pay for his campaign promises.

But I still am unsure. Unless the dems get full control of the congress, nothing he wants to do would get done. Like, ever. Even though he's a great politician, he's almost too polarizing and the right lambastes him as "extreme".
 
My problem is less with Bernie and more his impact on voters when he loses the primary again. I don't want to see another throwing up of hands and "why bother?" that lands Trump another four years.
 
Remember to get your election decorations and lights up to show how much you care. The earlier they go up, the more devoted you must be.

—Patrick
 
It still doesn't have the effect on the bottom line you guys are implying it does.
Another lie of course. My claim was always that immigrants were very entrepreneurial nothing more. Maybe you should take some adult literacy classes?

Clearly you're also unable to discern rhetorical devices as well. Anyone (well, perhaps any native-english speaker, that I'll grant) would be able to discern that I was intentionally presenting the unpalatable as part and parcel with the (largely imaginary) socialist utopia everyone's so enamored with.
Which you phrased as we can do that if we also do their immigration policy. If you weren't such an [redacted] big jerkface I would give you the benefit of the doubt here and put it down to you making an interesting point in a stupid way. But you are so I won't.

Also your entire line of reasoning can be boiled down to "This is Norway's position and I believe them utterly" so it's also an incredibly intellectually lazy position.

edited by Dave
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GasBandit

Staff member
If you weren't such an [redacted] big jerkface I would give you the benefit of the doubt here and put it down to you making an interesting point in a stupid way. But you are so I won't.
Well [redacted] you're my friend too.

edited by Dave
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dave

Staff member
It got reported so I acted. Otherwise I'd have just left it. No worries. No points given or bans or anything. Just a normal day in Poolitics-land.

And yes, I'm leaving in that typo.
 
It got reported so I acted. Otherwise I'd have just left it. No worries. No points given or bans or anything. Just a normal day in Poolitics-land.

And yes, I'm leaving in that typo.
Rather than leaving in the typo, perhaps you could move it to the thread title.
 

Dave

Staff member
Okay, so you've all probably heard of the catholic cardinal George Pell. He's on trial for - surprise surprise! - child molestation. But that's not the reason I'm posting this. I'm normally appalled at the actions of these pedophiles, but this one is special because of his defense.

His lawyer is DEFENDING HIM by saying this was NOTHING MORE THAN..."plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.

Wait, WHAT?!?

And no, I'm not making that up.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ight-to-jail-as-bail-application-is-withdrawn
 

Dave

Staff member
It ranks right up there with "affluenza", although this time it didn't work.

(The fact that the "affluenza" argument DID work is painful enough.)
 
No it's smart. The guy is slam dunk guilty. The lawyer is arguing that the Church is not involved. Just a man raping a boy and he alone must pay for it, the Churches money should not be considered.
 

Dave

Staff member
It's not smart. The church is still complicit. It's not like child rape by priests is a new thing. There is a large dollop of culpability on top of the rancid cesspool that is the catholic church.
 
Top