Yeah, I think over-deregulation, under taxing of corporations in particular (to say nothing of the complicated tax avoidance measures) and general nepotism/ barriers to social mobility have now gotten to the point where it's meaningfully endangering the status quo (here at least, can't say how things are on your side) Jeremy Corbyn (think Bernie Sanders, but even more radically left considering the UKs generally less-right political landscape to start with) doing much better in the last election than he was expected to seems to have been a wake up for the Tories though, and they appear to be scrambling to try and rein back excesses now. It's sort of the same argument about conservation of historic buildings or nature, if you keep them away from people en masse, then they don't feel invested in them and there is less impetus ultimately to maintain/ preserve them.
I believe the family is usually republican, dont know if this changed his whole political outlook though, likely not officially I'd guess. I don't know if there is a lobby within the republicans that is pro (or at least neutral) on socialised medicine?
It's ridiculous how people will blame anything but corporations and businesses for hiring immigrants, moving out of country, outsourcing, trying to avoid paying so much tax, and whatnot.
Ah, not shocked they're republican/right wing, then. I don't think they're open about it anyway, but they likely are for it privately as long as they're affected.
It's ridiculous how people will blame anything but corporations and businesses for hiring immigrants, moving out of country, outsourcing, trying to avoid paying so much tax, and whatnot.
Ah, not shocked they're republican/right wing, then. I don't think they're open about it anyway, but they likely are for it privately as long as they're affected.
Indeed, ultimately big corporations should have an obligation to support the societies which have allowed them to exist to some extent. The skills they need have to be paid for somehow, but it's now left to universities and private debt to develop them, rather than having apprenticeship schemes, or the like. Having to run up massive personal debt to get a job which will probably ultimately lead to average wages, but just maybe you'll get lucky and reach the top isn't a good way of doing things really.
Basically that the level of growth seen after WW2 and up to the 2008 financial crisis was abnormally high, and we're going to have to re-adjust to much lower levels of growth going forward.
Indeed, ultimately big corporations should have an obligation to support the societies which have allowed them to exist to some extent. The skills they need have to be paid for somehow, but it's now left to universities and private debt to develop them, rather than having apprenticeship schemes, or the like. Having to run up massive personal debt to get a job which will probably ultimately lead to average wages, but just maybe you'll get lucky and reach the top isn't a good way of doing things really.
Basically that the level of growth seen after WW2 and up to the 2008 financial crisis was abnormally high, and we're going to have to re-adjust to much lower levels of growth going forward.
Also, the cold war made the US and Russia and their allies invest in new technologies because they were trying to compete with each other. I much prefer slower growth as opposed to inflated. Although, one problem is firms will do anything to please shareholders and maximize profits because now CEOs are as disposable as Kleenex. With the disposable CEOs comes inflated saleries because if the firm wants to hire so and so they have add even more than what s/he is currently making; thus creating huge pay inequality .
Indeed, ultimately big corporations should have an obligation to support the societies which have allowed them to exist to some extent. The skills they need have to be paid for somehow, but it's now left to universities and private debt to develop them, rather than having apprenticeship schemes, or the like. Having to run up massive personal debt to get a job which will probably ultimately lead to average wages, but just maybe you'll get lucky and reach the top isn't a good way of doing things really.
Basically that the level of growth seen after WW2 and up to the 2008 financial crisis was abnormally high, and we're going to have to re-adjust to much lower levels of growth going forward.
at the very least, corporations shouldn't be trying to fuck over their employees and people. and the right shouldn't be accusing people of being the problem. "Job stealing" is one of the dumbest shit I've ever heard of, and the blame should go to the companies for hiring immigrants for cheap labor in the first place, if not the whiners themselves for not even trying to improve.
Level of growth after WW2 made sense given people saved money to contribute to war efforts and all.
Apparently Osteen was being righteous and all, but he didn't open his church to those who needed shelter until enough people complained. Religion for you, I guess.
THe devastation by Harvey is pretty upsetting knowing how many people have been displaced and are likely gonna come back to devastated homes. Jeez.
Also, the cold war made the US and Russia and their allies invest in new technologies because they were trying to compete with each other. I much prefer slower growth as opposed to inflated. Although, one problem is firms will do anything to please shareholders and maximize profits because now CEOs are as disposable as Kleenex. With the disposable CEOs comes inflated saleries because if the firm wants to hire so and so they have add even more than what s/he is currently making; thus creating huge pay inequality .
at the very least, corporations shouldn't be trying to fuck over their employees and people. and the right shouldn't be accusing people of being the problem. "Job stealing" is one of the dumbest shit I've ever heard of, and the blame should go to the companies for hiring immigrants for cheap labor in the first place, if not the whiners themselves for not even trying to improve.
Level of growth after WW2 made sense given people saved money to contribute to war efforts and all.
Indeed, unfortunately making money in the short term tends to cause instability as companies/ people rack up debt in a boom, then panic when they realise they're starting to get out of their depth, and stop spending and everything crashes. There seriously should be a law against short-termism or something, companies should have to invest with the next 10 years in mind, at least. I think it's a case of just not being willing to invest in employees because it's an expensive and relatively low return expense. Why pay for an employee to go on a training course when you can hire in someone from abroad who has the skills and will probably accept a lower wage to boot?
Indeed, unfortunately making money in the short term tends to cause instability as companies/ people rack up debt in a boom, then panic when they realise they're starting to get out of their depth, and stop spending and everything crashes. There seriously should be a law against short-termism or something, companies should have to invest with the next 10 years in mind, at least. I think it's a case of just not being willing to invest in employees because it's an expensive and relatively low return expense. Why pay for an employee to go on a training course when you can hire in someone from abroad who has the skills and will probably accept a lower wage to boot?
The problem with that is most people leave their jobs after five years. Usually they get a better one so most companies don't invest in training if their essential training their competitor in five years. I've seen it in the workplace: the company doesn't have a space open for a promotion so someone looks for that promotion at another employer. It's those entering that suffer because they don't have the experience to job jump. This problem of entry level work not what it used to be is world wide.
He's ending a lot of things. Whether it actually goes through is another story. It's funny he wants to end NAFTA when the US has benefited so much from it
Eh, having read up on this and with perhaps a different view coming at this from a very different socio-economic situation but I think generally the west has been far too lax in enforcing immigration laws. It's not that the existing laws aren't strong enough, it's that they are allowed to be twisted, stretched or even ignored by loopholes and principles like this. Generally there seems to be a growing assertion that it's anyone's right to live anywhere they choose, and that mindset seems to have become endemic in LDCs [see also European migrant crisis]. That's not the case and for very good reason. Immigration laws and quotas are set to ensure that the people entering a country to work are bringing the necessary skills to fill roles of which there are a lot available, if they've been turned down by 'the system' then it's because they don't fit the necessary parameters. Ultimately it's fair to say not everyone can live in the ~20% of the world that is a MEDC, so the only way to bring prosperity is to increase development in the countries of origin of most of these people. This is made harder when a significant number of people with skills that lead to growth and development just ship off to an already advanced economy. It might seem hard nosed to turn people away, but ultimately unless the west weans itself off imported labour we're going to prevent the change necessary to bring prosperity to the rest of the globe, and become overly reliant on it to the further detriment of being able to develop those skills domestically (which would be calamitous to western economies).
Eh, having read up on this and with perhaps a different view coming at this from a very different socio-economic situation but I think generally the west has been far too lax in enforcing immigration laws. It's not that the existing laws aren't strong enough, it's that they are allowed to be twisted, stretched or even ignored by loopholes and principles like this. Generally there seems to be a growing assertion that it's anyone's right to live anywhere they choose, and that mindset seems to have become endemic in LDCs [see also European migrant crisis]. That's not the case and for very good reason. Immigration laws and quotas are set to ensure that the people entering a country to work are bringing the necessary skills to fill roles of which there are a lot available, if they've been turned down by 'the system' then it's because they don't fit the necessary parameters. Ultimately it's fair to say not everyone can live in the ~20% of the world that is a MEDC, so the only way to bring prosperity is to increase development in the countries of origin of most of these people. This is made harder when a significant number of people with skills that lead to growth and development just ship off to an already advanced economy. It might seem hard nosed to turn people away, but ultimately unless the west weans itself off imported labour we're going to prevent the change necessary to bring prosperity to the rest of the globe, and become overly reliant on it to the further detriment of being able to develop those skills domestically (which would be calamitous to western economies).
It's strange that Canada is so welcoming yet our laws are so strict we deport people in the airport if they don't have the right paperwork. I agree helping other countries develop would be better but it has to be done right. In most cases from colonialism/military aid the West has intervined so much the countries that are supported their political system collapse and the citizens suffer. For example, Afghanistan is seeing so many people fleeing from 2015 after troops entering in 2002 than leaving 2014. Thousands were sent back to Afghanistan from Europe, which I think is irresponsible. Iraq could be argued (and I agree) is a big intervention mistake. The West creates a mess in another country and if people want to flee the chaos, the west and claims no fault and people should live with their mistake
Canada is far from perfect and we have done our fair share of colonialism. That's probably why we accepted Syrian refugees from camps and are putting a system for the US migrants that are fleeing to our border from Trump. Europe's system is way different because one could just hope on a boat or hitch a ride without as many border guards. When it comes to immigration I think countries try their best and no system is perfect; North American is stricter when it comes to borders which is why I don't think the US needs to change. If they had better relations with other countries in the Americas and helped them develop properly, many wouldn't flee to the US and Canada. Also, Canada needs to do this too but, making post-secondary education more affordable and have better job training so more people are skilled would work. If people are trained for the jobs that are in demand, companies wouldn't need to hire foreign workers. The government also needs better restrictions on approving foregin labour because it gets abused for cheap labour. If country A has the training or workers, shouldn't country B implement the same? I guess the problem isn't the foregin workers themselves but the government not investing in job training.
He's ending a lot of things. Whether it actually goes through is another story. It's funny he wants to end NAFTA when the US has benefited so much from it
Eh, having read up on this and with perhaps a different view coming at this from a very different socio-economic situation but I think generally the west has been far too lax in enforcing immigration laws. It's not that the existing laws aren't strong enough, it's that they are allowed to be twisted, stretched or even ignored by loopholes and principles like this. Generally there seems to be a growing assertion that it's anyone's right to live anywhere they choose, and that mindset seems to have become endemic in LDCs [see also European migrant crisis]. That's not the case and for very good reason. Immigration laws and quotas are set to ensure that the people entering a country to work are bringing the necessary skills to fill roles of which there are a lot available, if they've been turned down by 'the system' then it's because they don't fit the necessary parameters. Ultimately it's fair to say not everyone can live in the ~20% of the world that is a MEDC, so the only way to bring prosperity is to increase development in the countries of origin of most of these people. This is made harder when a significant number of people with skills that lead to growth and development just ship off to an already advanced economy. It might seem hard nosed to turn people away, but ultimately unless the west weans itself off imported labour we're going to prevent the change necessary to bring prosperity to the rest of the globe, and become overly reliant on it to the further detriment of being able to develop those skills domestically (which would be calamitous to western economies).
I don't think they've been that lax, especially since more immigrants have been deported under Obama than any other president before him. Plus, immigrants are important, from doing jobs that Americans don't want to do to helping create jobs with their entrepreneurial ways.
Problem is, countries like US and UK are why most of the "3rd world countries" are in such bad shape. We've stolen their resources and have given little back to them, which has caused many to emigrate. If anything, the west should fuck off and mind its own business instead of sapping resources for selfish reasons.
It's strange that Canada is so welcoming yet our laws are so strict we deport people in the airport if they don't have the right paperwork. I agree helping other countries develop would be better but it has to be done right. In most cases from colonialism/military aid the West has intervined so much the countries that are supported their political system collapse and the citizens suffer. For example, Afghanistan is seeing so many people fleeing from 2015 after troops entering in 2002 than leaving 2014. Thousands were sent back to Afghanistan from Europe, which I think is irresponsible. Iraq could be argued (and I agree) is a big intervention mistake. The West creates a mess in another country and if people want to flee the chaos, the west and claims no fault and people should live with their mistake
Canada is far from perfect and we have done our fair share of colonialism. That's probably why we accepted Syrian refugees from camps and are putting a system for the US migrants that are fleeing to our border from Trump. Europe's system is way different because one could just hope on a boat or hitch a ride without as many border guards. When it comes to immigration I think countries try their best and no system is perfect; North American is stricter when it comes to borders which is why I don't think the US needs to change. If they had better relations with other countries in the Americas and helped them develop properly, many wouldn't flee to the US and Canada. Also, Canada needs to do this too but, making post-secondary education more affordable and have better job training so more people are skilled would work. If people are trained for the jobs that are in demand, companies wouldn't need to hire foreign workers. The government also needs better restrictions on approving foregin labour because it gets abused for cheap labour. If country A has the training or workers, shouldn't country B implement the same? I guess the problem isn't the foregin workers themselves but the government not investing in job training.
I think he's given six months delay before it ends?
I don't think Trump really knows much of what he's doing or ending, tbh.
I don't think they've been that lax, especially since more immigrants have been deported under Obama than any other president before him. Plus, immigrants are important, from doing jobs that Americans don't want to do to helping create jobs with their entrepreneurial ways.
Problem is, countries like US and UK are why most of the "3rd world countries" are in such bad shape. We've stolen their resources and have given little back to them, which has caused many to emigrate. If anything, the west should fuck off and mind its own business instead of sapping resources for selfish reasons.
Yes and no, honestly the whole 'intervention' argument is a lot less black and white than intervention = bad, keeping out = good... I know there's been incidents, particularly Iraq where the whole WMDs thing seems to have been wholly fabricated as an excuse to interven, where we've definitely overstepped the mark of what should be reasonably acceptable, but on the other hand 'doing nothing' in other cases is just as hard (Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, for e.g.). The Middle East in particular is a complete moral quagmire, you have the case of, ok in the 60s-80s it was western policy to install/ support dictators in countries to try and have some sort of stability brought to them. So we ended up forcing countries to live under often brutal totalitarian regimes. But then, as with Saddam, if we go in to take them out and let democracy flourish, you invariably end up with a new democratic regime elected by the majority that will persecute minorities like it's going out of style. (See Christians and Muslim minorities in Iraq post Saddam). Thanks to borders of convenience, most ME countries have a real mix of Sunni, Shia, minority Muslim, and other ethno-religious groups, and they tend to have been at war for centuries. When you remove the 'strong man' government (in most cases the French/British imperial regime, followed by new dictators installed from the 60s after most countries effectively collapsed into anarchy) then civil war is the most likely outcome, and always will be until borders align with ethno-religious groupings. (Incidentally, wars in Europe stopped after WW2 when borders finally reflected European cultural/ ethnic groups on the map, so the principle does seem to work).
Similar story as far as resources go, on one hand, realistically to develop their natural resources in order to benefit from them, most less developed countries need the cash, and moreso the expertise of multinational companies like big mining or oil majors - and in return it's got to be that those companies can make a reasonable (I guess that's the key word) return on the investment that they make. Ultimately having resources is no good if you can't benefit from developing and selling them abroad. There are incidents where, again, the intervention to help develop resources goes wrong, and one that particularly sticks in my mind is the UN loaning Sudan a significant sum of money to grow and export cotton. Long story short, cotton is a thirsty crop, Sudan is hit by a drought, which leads to a famine, they want to replace a chunk of the cotton crop with subsistence crops to help ease water and food shortages, but the UN refuse to let them do that because it would make repaying the loan impossible with the lost revenue from the cotton industry. Great, the organisation that's meant to be helping these countries basically pistol whips a government into letting its people starve. So yeah, the world is a pretty messed up place, some of it's our fault, some of it's stuff that predates western intervention, but ultimately, effectively stealing the skilled labour from the countries who could benefit from it most is as bad as making a country sell us unrefined oil on the cheap so we can process it and sell it back to them at a profit.
Yes I think you're right to suggest it's a slightly different situation in NA to Eur, though with cheap mass flights that's becoming less the case now. The fact is Angela Merkel effectively showed that Europe is unprepared and unable to take in the sort of quantities of people who wish to come. There's also the not so small issue of separating economic migrants from genuine refugees given the current crisis. The fact that up to 9 in 10 arrivals are young men tells you something there - they are the people who should be fighting to regain control of their country - if European men (and in many cases boys) had fled to safety in the USA rather than fighting Hitler in WW2 it's likely fascism would ultimately have conquered most of, at least Afro-Eurasia, if not the entire globe. No, pure economic migrants abusing a crisis to try and slip through immigration controls is a serious offence that really does need to be stopped. There was also a story recently about "refugees" actually taking holidays back in their countries of origin to visit family members! Abusing the system that's meant to help people who really need it should mean instant disqualification/ deportation, that's really not on.
It's strange that Canada is so welcoming yet our laws are so strict we deport people in the airport if they don't have the right paperwork. I agree helping other countries develop would be better but it has to be done right. In most cases from colonialism/military aid the West has intervined so much the countries that are supported their political system collapse and the citizens suffer. For example, Afghanistan is seeing so many people fleeing from 2015 after troops entering in 2002 than leaving 2014. Thousands were sent back to Afghanistan from Europe, which I think is irresponsible. Iraq could be argued (and I agree) is a big intervention mistake. The West creates a mess in another country and if people want to flee the chaos, the west and claims no fault and people should live with their mistake
Canada is far from perfect and we have done our fair share of colonialism. That's probably why we accepted Syrian refugees from camps and are putting a system for the US migrants that are fleeing to our border from Trump. Europe's system is way different because one could just hope on a boat or hitch a ride without as many border guards. When it comes to immigration I think countries try their best and no system is perfect; North American is stricter when it comes to borders which is why I don't think the US needs to change. If they had better relations with other countries in the Americas and helped them develop properly, many wouldn't flee to the US and Canada. Also, Canada needs to do this too but, making post-secondary education more affordable and have better job training so more people are skilled would work. If people are trained for the jobs that are in demand, companies wouldn't need to hire foreign workers. The government also needs better restrictions on approving foregin labour because it gets abused for cheap labour. If country A has the training or workers, shouldn't country B implement the same? I guess the problem isn't the foregin workers themselves but the government not investing in job training.
I think he's given six months delay before it ends?
I don't think Trump really knows much of what he's doing or ending, tbh.
I don't think they've been that lax, especially since more immigrants have been deported under Obama than any other president before him. Plus, immigrants are important, from doing jobs that Americans don't want to do to helping create jobs with their entrepreneurial ways.
Problem is, countries like US and UK are why most of the "3rd world countries" are in such bad shape. We've stolen their resources and have given little back to them, which has caused many to emigrate. If anything, the west should fuck off and mind its own business instead of sapping resources for selfish reasons.
Yes and no, honestly the whole 'intervention' argument is a lot less black and white than intervention = bad, keeping out = good... I know there's been incidents, particularly Iraq where the whole WMDs thing seems to have been wholly fabricated as an excuse to interven, where we've definitely overstepped the mark of what should be reasonably acceptable, but on the other hand 'doing nothing' in other cases is just as hard (Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, for e.g.). The Middle East in particular is a complete moral quagmire, you have the case of, ok in the 60s-80s it was western policy to install/ support dictators in countries to try and have some sort of stability brought to them. So we ended up forcing countries to live under often brutal totalitarian regimes. But then, as with Saddam, if we go in to take them out and let democracy flourish, you invariably end up with a new democratic regime elected by the majority that will persecute minorities like it's going out of style. (See Christians and Muslim minorities in Iraq post Saddam). Thanks to borders of convenience, most ME countries have a real mix of Sunni, Shia, minority Muslim, and other ethno-religious groups, and they tend to have been at war for centuries. When you remove the 'strong man' government (in most cases the French/British imperial regime, followed by new dictators installed from the 60s after most countries effectively collapsed into anarchy) then civil war is the most likely outcome, and always will be until borders align with ethno-religious groupings. (Incidentally, wars in Europe stopped after WW2 when borders finally reflected European cultural/ ethnic groups on the map, so the principle does seem to work).
Similar story as far as resources go, on one hand, realistically to develop their natural resources in order to benefit from them, most less developed countries need the cash, and moreso the expertise of multinational companies like big mining or oil majors - and in return it's got to be that those companies can make a reasonable (I guess that's the key word) return on the investment that they make. Ultimately having resources is no good if you can't benefit from developing and selling them abroad. There are incidents where, again, the intervention to help develop resources goes wrong, and one that particularly sticks in my mind is the UN loaning Sudan a significant sum of money to grow and export cotton. Long story short, cotton is a thirsty crop, Sudan is hit by a drought, which leads to a famine, they want to replace a chunk of the cotton crop with subsistence crops to help ease water and food shortages, but the UN refuse to let them do that because it would make repaying the loan impossible with the lost revenue from the cotton industry. Great, the organisation that's meant to be helping these countries basically pistol whips a government into letting its people starve. So yeah, the world is a pretty messed up place, some of it's our fault, some of it's stuff that predates western intervention, but ultimately, effectively stealing the skilled labour from the countries who could benefit from it most is as bad as making a country sell us unrefined oil on the cheap so we can process it and sell it back to them at a profit.
Yes I think you're right to suggest it's a slightly different situation in NA to Eur, though with cheap mass flights that's becoming less the case now. The fact is Angela Merkel effectively showed that Europe is unprepared and unable to take in the sort of quantities of people who wish to come. There's also the not so small issue of separating economic migrants from genuine refugees given the current crisis. The fact that up to 9 in 10 arrivals are young men tells you something there - they are the people who should be fighting to regain control of their country - if European men (and in many cases boys) had fled to safety in the USA rather than fighting Hitler in WW2 it's likely fascism would ultimately have conquered most of, at least Afro-Eurasia, if not the entire globe. No, pure economic migrants abusing a crisis to try and slip through immigration controls is a serious offence that really does need to be stopped. There was also a story recently about "refugees" actually taking holidays back in their countries of origin to visit family members! Abusing the system that's meant to help people who really need it should mean instant disqualification/ deportation, that's really not on.
Yes and no, honestly the whole 'intervention' argument is a lot less black and white than intervention = bad, keeping out = good... I know there's been incidents, particularly Iraq where the whole WMDs thing seems to have been wholly fabricated as an excuse to interven, where we've definitely overstepped the mark of what should be reasonably acceptable, but on the other hand 'doing nothing' in other cases is just as hard (Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, for e.g.). The Middle East in particular is a complete moral quagmire, you have the case of, ok in the 60s-80s it was western policy to install/ support dictators in countries to try and have some sort of stability brought to them. So we ended up forcing countries to live under often brutal totalitarian regimes. But then, as with Saddam, if we go in to take them out and let democracy flourish, you invariably end up with a new democratic regime elected by the majority that will persecute minorities like it's going out of style. (See Christians and Muslim minorities in Iraq post Saddam). Thanks to borders of convenience, most ME countries have a real mix of Sunni, Shia, minority Muslim, and other ethno-religious groups, and they tend to have been at war for centuries. When you remove the 'strong man' government (in most cases the French/British imperial regime, followed by new dictators installed from the 60s after most countries effectively collapsed into anarchy) then civil war is the most likely outcome, and always will be until borders align with ethno-religious groupings. (Incidentally, wars in Europe stopped after WW2 when borders finally reflected European cultural/ ethnic groups on the map, so the principle does seem to work).
Similar story as far as resources go, on one hand, realistically to develop their natural resources in order to benefit from them, most less developed countries need the cash, and moreso the expertise of multinational companies like big mining or oil majors - and in return it's got to be that those companies can make a reasonable (I guess that's the key word) return on the investment that they make. Ultimately having resources is no good if you can't benefit from developing and selling them abroad. There are incidents where, again, the intervention to help develop resources goes wrong, and one that particularly sticks in my mind is the UN loaning Sudan a significant sum of money to grow and export cotton. Long story short, cotton is a thirsty crop, Sudan is hit by a drought, which leads to a famine, they want to replace a chunk of the cotton crop with subsistence crops to help ease water and food shortages, but the UN refuse to let them do that because it would make repaying the loan impossible with the lost revenue from the cotton industry. Great, the organisation that's meant to be helping these countries basically pistol whips a government into letting its people starve. So yeah, the world is a pretty messed up place, some of it's our fault, some of it's stuff that predates western intervention, but ultimately, effectively stealing the skilled labour from the countries who could benefit from it most is as bad as making a country sell us unrefined oil on the cheap so we can process it and sell it back to them at a profit.
Yes I think you're right to suggest it's a slightly different situation in NA to Eur, though with cheap mass flights that's becoming less the case now. The fact is Angela Merkel effectively showed that Europe is unprepared and unable to take in the sort of quantities of people who wish to come. There's also the not so small issue of separating economic migrants from genuine refugees given the current crisis. The fact that up to 9 in 10 arrivals are young men tells you something there - they are the people who should be fighting to regain control of their country - if European men (and in many cases boys) had fled to safety in the USA rather than fighting Hitler in WW2 it's likely fascism would ultimately have conquered most of, at least Afro-Eurasia, if not the entire globe. No, pure economic migrants abusing a crisis to try and slip through immigration controls is a serious offence that really does need to be stopped. There was also a story recently about "refugees" actually taking holidays back in their countries of origin to visit family members! Abusing the system that's meant to help people who really need it should mean instant disqualification/ deportation, that's really not on.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Yes and no, honestly the whole 'intervention' argument is a lot less black and white than intervention = bad, keeping out = good... I know there's been incidents, particularly Iraq where the whole WMDs thing seems to have been wholly fabricated as an excuse to interven, where we've definitely overstepped the mark of what should be reasonably acceptable, but on the other hand 'doing nothing' in other cases is just as hard (Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, for e.g.). The Middle East in particular is a complete moral quagmire, you have the case of, ok in the 60s-80s it was western policy to install/ support dictators in countries to try and have some sort of stability brought to them. So we ended up forcing countries to live under often brutal totalitarian regimes. But then, as with Saddam, if we go in to take them out and let democracy flourish, you invariably end up with a new democratic regime elected by the majority that will persecute minorities like it's going out of style. (See Christians and Muslim minorities in Iraq post Saddam). Thanks to borders of convenience, most ME countries have a real mix of Sunni, Shia, minority Muslim, and other ethno-religious groups, and they tend to have been at war for centuries. When you remove the 'strong man' government (in most cases the French/British imperial regime, followed by new dictators installed from the 60s after most countries effectively collapsed into anarchy) then civil war is the most likely outcome, and always will be until borders align with ethno-religious groupings. (Incidentally, wars in Europe stopped after WW2 when borders finally reflected European cultural/ ethnic groups on the map, so the principle does seem to work).
Similar story as far as resources go, on one hand, realistically to develop their natural resources in order to benefit from them, most less developed countries need the cash, and moreso the expertise of multinational companies like big mining or oil majors - and in return it's got to be that those companies can make a reasonable (I guess that's the key word) return on the investment that they make. Ultimately having resources is no good if you can't benefit from developing and selling them abroad. There are incidents where, again, the intervention to help develop resources goes wrong, and one that particularly sticks in my mind is the UN loaning Sudan a significant sum of money to grow and export cotton. Long story short, cotton is a thirsty crop, Sudan is hit by a drought, which leads to a famine, they want to replace a chunk of the cotton crop with subsistence crops to help ease water and food shortages, but the UN refuse to let them do that because it would make repaying the loan impossible with the lost revenue from the cotton industry. Great, the organisation that's meant to be helping these countries basically pistol whips a government into letting its people starve. So yeah, the world is a pretty messed up place, some of it's our fault, some of it's stuff that predates western intervention, but ultimately, effectively stealing the skilled labour from the countries who could benefit from it most is as bad as making a country sell us unrefined oil on the cheap so we can process it and sell it back to them at a profit.
Yes I think you're right to suggest it's a slightly different situation in NA to Eur, though with cheap mass flights that's becoming less the case now. The fact is Angela Merkel effectively showed that Europe is unprepared and unable to take in the sort of quantities of people who wish to come. There's also the not so small issue of separating economic migrants from genuine refugees given the current crisis. The fact that up to 9 in 10 arrivals are young men tells you something there - they are the people who should be fighting to regain control of their country - if European men (and in many cases boys) had fled to safety in the USA rather than fighting Hitler in WW2 it's likely fascism would ultimately have conquered most of, at least Afro-Eurasia, if not the entire globe. No, pure economic migrants abusing a crisis to try and slip through immigration controls is a serious offence that really does need to be stopped. There was also a story recently about "refugees" actually taking holidays back in their countries of origin to visit family members! Abusing the system that's meant to help people who really need it should mean instant disqualification/ deportation, that's really not on.
Sexual assult is very hard to prove because it comes down to consent and therefore cannot be tried under convention means. It's not just the US having difficulty understanding thus concept here in Canada it's not campuses that gain attention it is high profile (police were recently found not guilty and same with a broadcaster). However, any age shouldn't experience unwanted sexual assult.
That is one thing I am somewhat iffy about. I just now learned that sexual assault cases require less than beyond reasonable for someone to be found guilty. I am not particularly inclined to believing this will result in rampant lying in court where innocent people get prosecuted as sex offenders but the standard being lowered for charges as serious as that has some serious implications. I would not support the measure, it's not like the solution to sexual assault anywhere can be found in courts.
That is one thing I am somewhat iffy about. I just now learned that sexual assault cases require less than beyond reasonable for someone to be found guilty. I am not particularly inclined to believing this will result in rampant lying in court where innocent people get prosecuted as sex offenders but the standard being lowered for charges as serious as that has some serious implications. I would not support the measure, it's not like the solution to sexual assault anywhere can be found in courts.
The accuser still has to prove the allegations because it's innocent proven guilty. The case ends up being he said she said and the courts usually favour the defenant. From the victims perceptive, how can there be justice when most sexual allegations are proven not guilty? That suggests we have a bunch of liars but if someone was brave enough to go to the authorities and fill out a police report, they can't all be ones. Also, if few sex allegations get criminal offenses, what does that say if a victim wants to come forward?
The accuser still has to prove the allegations because it's innocent proven guilty. The case ends up being he said she said and the courts usually favour the defenant. From the victims perceptive, how can there be justice when most sexual allegations are proven not guilty? That suggests we have a bunch of liars but if someone was brave enough to go to the authorities and fill out a police report, they can't all be ones. Also, if few sex allegations get criminal offenses, what does that say if a victim wants to come forward?
That is very misleading. Sure, you technically have to prove it but it's one thing to prove something conforming to beyond reasonable doubt and another entirely to prove something to meet preponderance of evidence standards. Preponderance of evidence in used in civil cases precisely because the stakes are lower, they usually are resolved with compensation. The stakes in this case are in no form or context low, for the potential victim as for the potential assaulter. It's completely fair to want to overhaul the system to encourage victims to speak out but it is not fair towards accused people that the standard of proof for such a severe, potentially life ruining accusation, to be so low.
I much prefer slower growth as opposed to inflated. Although, one problem is firms will do anything to please shareholders and maximize profits because now CEOs are as disposable as Kleenex. With the disposable CEOs comes inflated saleries because if the firm wants to hire so and so they have add even more than what s/he is currently making; thus creating huge pay inequality 
.
