you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Good is a relative term. Let's say your population is X and can be taxed for Y amount, while potential immigrants are A and can potentially be taxed for B amount. Y+B is always more than Y, even if B is a tiny number. So if your goal is to boost the GDP in order to boost taxes in order to get a bigger army, immigration is good for economy. In basically every other realistic scenario is bad.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Your equation is ignoring the net social welfare costs of those immigrants, e.g. schools, roads, healthcare, etc.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you only care about the army, you can simply cut the welfare.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Are you replying to the wrong comment?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He is implying that if the ruling elite only care about taxation and military spending, mass immigration works fine even if it has deeply corrosive effects on the rest of the economy and society.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not actually implying that. The ruling elite probably likes immigration for his negative effects, expecially the lower wages. That's beneficial for them. I said that immigration is useful IF you want, for whatever reasons, a bigger army. Speaking about USA, probably both are true: the elite wants lower wages and bigger army.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, thank you for clarifying.