Latino Voters Want to Vote in This Election Just to Take Down Donald Trump

[Paranoid Android]

Tell that to the border states.

I'm curious: why don't immigrants stay home and make their own country into a paradise? Why are immigrants coming to the U.S.?

Let's see how you worm your way out of answering that.

Please! Please! Be from the U.S. so I can see the massive irony in this statement.

[Endus]

My argument is there are less opportunities for people who wish to escape Mexico.

That's provable. By your own sources.

Your original argument was that the US was still seeing an influx of illegal immigrants. That's just objectively false, and you've shifted the goalposts to this position to avoid admitting so.

[Deleted]

Your original argument was that the US was still seeing an influx of illegal immigrants. That's just objectively false, and you've shifted the goalposts to this position to avoid admitting so.

There are two groups of immigrants: those who wish to escape, and those who prey on the weak.

Drug cartels have been exported to border states.

Now who's going to deal with them? They prey on the weak.

You can deny this if you wish, but the problem is going to be solved.

[Spectral]

Tax policies that are only designed to punish certain groups of people without any regard for the economic effects are generally pretty unsound policy.

I don't think such a policy would be implemented without any regard for economic effects. You just disagree with the people proposing it on what the effects would be. FWIW (which isn't much), I'm basically agnostic about the total effect. The long-run effect of disincentivizing illegal immigration surely has positive value, but it's hard to count how much this is worth in economic terms.

In any case, my qualm wasn't so much whether it's sound policy, just that it's not theft. Taxes aren't theft. Regulatory policies that prevent certain types of wealth transfers are theft.

If immigrants are sending dollars back home, those ultimately are going to have to be spent buying American goods...

This strikes me as a pretty out there claim. Some small fraction of the goods purchased with those dollars are manufactured in the United States. This doesn't imply that the net effect of sending money out is that demand for American goods increases.

[Endus]

There are two groups of immigrants: those who wish to escape, and those who prey on the weak.

Yeah, when you start your argument with something so outrageously prejudicial, it's not going to lead to anything productive.

[alexw]

None? There are zero economists who would agree with the claim that illegal migrant laborers exporting American money is a bad thing? That's an implausible claim. I don't think it'd be hard to find people that think net wealth transfers from the United States to Mexico are an unmitigated good thing for the United States.

Man, I wish I lived in a world where things didn't have tradeoffs, but just All Good or All Bad. That'd make decision making super easy indeed. I don't think that's the world we live in though.

Let's, for a moment, assume that you're correct though - there's zero downside to illegal aliens transferring money out of country and the only measurable outcome is mitigating poverty in Mexico with zero downside for the United States. If that's the case, do you support doubling the amount of these transfers?

It is American currency not American money. It is not owned by you or some other American citizen. When it leaves it can only be used for two purposes. One is for the nationals of other nations to trade with each other (the dollar is the worlds reserve currency). This trading is not harmful but rather is beneficial. The other is to buy something from America whereby the money returns to America. Again this is not harmful but beneficial trade.

It is not a wealth transfer as you seem to think but the movement of digits on a computer screen from one account to another, when there is absolutely no limit whatsoever to the creation of such digits. The actual transfer of wealth happened when that person gained that money. Given that after that movement of digits only those two options I stated can occur where exactly is the negative? What the general public think is negative does not mean it is so. The general public are frequently wrong about many things they do not understand.

So no no economist would consider this process harmful as it stands. There are some negatives to having the dollar as the reserve currency, (see triffin dilemma) but in the context of the size of the US economy and the size of these transfers, no there are no negatives to it.

[Deleted]

Tell that to the border states.

I'm curious: why don't immigrants stay home and make their own country into a paradise? Why are immigrants coming to the U.S.?

Let's see how you worm your way out of answering that.

Because bad institutions, corruption, and overall poverty makes it hard.

[Deleted]

Because bad institutions, corruption, and overall poverty makes it hard.

We have the same problems here.

But I am told to "blame yourself".

Listen to Mrs Maiden here as well. We are losers who are "unable to adapt".

It only applies to us, but immigrants are escaping from poverty.

It's over. History repeats itself for a reason.

[Macaquerie]

I don't think such a policy would be implemented without any regard for economic effects. You just disagree with the people proposing it on what the effects would be. FWIW (which isn't much), I'm basically agnostic about the total effect. The long-run effect of disincentivizing illegal immigration surely has positive value, but it's hard to count how much this is worth in economic terms.

In any case, my qualm wasn't so much whether it's sound policy, just that it's not theft. Taxes aren't theft. Regulatory policies that prevent certain types of wealth transfers are theft.

This strikes me as a pretty out there claim. Some small fraction of the goods purchased with those dollars are manufactured in the United States. This doesn't imply that the net effect of sending money out is that demand for American goods increases.

Money doesn't disappear when it's spent. If dollars are sent abroad, then they either end up back in the US eventually, or they somehow circulate abroad forever. That second one doesn't sound so great, but just think about it for a second - we basically got goods and services for free since we paid for them in dollars that we can print up anytime, and never had to return the favor by supplying goods or services ourselves that they had to pay for using those dollars. This phenomenon is kind of unique to the US dollar due to its privileged status and it essentially enables us to get tons of crap for free in real terms, since foreign countries always need a steady stream of dollars to do business, whereas we could care fuck all about holding foreign currencies for the same reason.

Not to single you out or anything, but I feel like this sort of belies Trump and his supporters' fundamental misunderstanding of economics. There isn't some finite pool of wealth out there that we are losing a share of every time an illegal immigrant sends money back home. Mercantilism was discredited as an ideology before this country was even founded, let's not try and bring it back now.

[Theinquisition]

I don't think such a policy would be implemented without any regard for economic effects. You just disagree with the people proposing it on what the effects would be. FWIW (which isn't much), I'm basically agnostic about the total effect. The long-run effect of disincentivizing illegal immigration surely has positive value, but it's hard to count how much this is worth in economic terms.

In any case, my qualm wasn't so much whether it's sound policy, just that it's not theft. Taxes aren't theft. Regulatory policies that prevent certain types of wealth transfers are theft.

This strikes me as a pretty out there claim. Some small fraction of the goods purchased with those dollars are manufactured in the United States. This doesn't imply that the net effect of sending money out is that demand for American goods increases.

On your second point, very much agree. I'm all for a large tax on out of country money transfers, if the money is going out of the economy, it's not good for the country.

[Spectral]

It is American currency not American money. It is not owned by you or some other American citizen. When it leaves it can only be used for two purposes. One is for the nationals of other nations to trade with each other (the dollar is the worlds reserve currency). This trading is not harmful but rather is beneficial. The other is to buy something from America whereby the money returns to America. Again this is not harmful but beneficial trade.

It is not a wealth transfer as you seem to think but the movement of digits on a computer screen from one account to another, when there is absolutely no limit whatsoever to the creation of such digits. The actual transfer of wealth happened when that person gained that money. Given that after that movement of digits only those two options I stated can occur where exactly is the negative? What the general public think is negative does not mean it is so. The general public are frequently wrong about many things they do not understand.

So no no economist would consider this process harmful as it stands. There are some negatives to having the dollar as the reserve currency, (see triffin dilemma) but in the context of the size of the US economy and the size of these transfers, no there are no negatives to it.

Let's say your perspective is wholesale correct and there are indeed zero economists that disagree (implausible as that final claim is). If that's the case, shouldn't the United States simply create an additional $30 billion/year and transfer it to impoverished nations? That seems like the obvious implication. If workers sending currency abroad has no negative impact on anyone in the United States and has a positive impact on the receiving country, why be so evil as to deny them access to that additional currency?

[Deleted]

No you weigh up the pro's and con's of what is going on and of outlawing it. Is it harmful to have money being wire transferred? (no, absolutely no economist would say such a thing).

That's not even remotely true.

Would it be harmful to make it illegal? (every economist would tell you yes, you push the process into the black economy and spawn all sorts of criminality).

also not true.

Ergo, the answer is clear cut, you don't do it, you don't make it illegal. There are no benefits and lots of downsides.

Lets say we make it illegal.
This then forces immigrants to use 'services' making it so they earn 50 cents on the dollar or so.
Effectively cutting their earning power in half wont impact the number of illegals in the country? So there is clearly upsides.
Now for downsides - what would they be? the rise of credit unions and such? that's a good outcome - some illegal money transfer systems? seems terrible okay as criminals go...

[Thoughtful Trolli]

If what OP is even remotely trying to do is suggest that Latino Voters have an agenda that's unusual, I can quell all sides of the discussion with an answer that will bring insight to the suggested behaviors even if they prove valid.

That being said, the answer is that if there was any way to vote out all the current candidates and start the election process over with candidates we at least know absolutely nothing about at this point, we'd ALL vote for that.

If anyone isn't in agreement with that universal fact, then the really big question here would really be "Why are latino's voting hillary when most people also disagree with her?" Combined with "Why won't latinos trust Bernie Sanders at all, especially when he's popular among blacks? Is it because of the infamous hatred between the two ethnicity?

Now that's a real discussion. I think the answer to that is that latinos lack the ability to dream and hope beyond the obvious given choices, as it was beaten out of them to make them better workers.

[Deleted]

Not to single you out or anything, but I feel like this sort of belies Trump and his supporters' fundamental misunderstanding of economics. There isn't some finite pool of wealth out there that we are losing a share of every time an illegal immigrant sends money back home. Mercantilism was discredited as an ideology before this country was even founded, let's not try and bring it back now.

I'm 100% certain the reason for the remittance ban is to make it less attractive to work in the US and support a family back home.

[Spectral]

Money doesn't disappear when it's spent. If dollars are sent abroad, then they either end up back in the US eventually, or they somehow circulate abroad forever. That second one doesn't sound so great, but just think about it for a second - we basically got goods and services for free since we paid for them in dollars that we can print up anytime, and never had to return the favor by supplying goods or services ourselves that they had to pay for using those dollars. This phenomenon is kind of unique to the US dollar due to its privileged status and it essentially enables us to get tons of crap for free in real terms, since foreign countries always need a steady stream of dollars to do business, whereas we could care fuck all about holding foreign currencies for the same reason.

Not to single you out or anything, but I feel like this sort of belies Trump and his supporters' fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

Yes, I'm aware that a frequently touted position regarding the money supply is that we can always just print more of it with no ill effects and that's what the smart people know. I don't buy it and I'm confident that this isn't a result of rank economic illiteracy. While I can't guess at the background of any specific individuals, I certainly have more educational background on empirical research than pretty much everyone here and have done enough reading of primary economics to be pretty confident that a lot of things that people think are settled just aren't.

A good example of something that seems like it's turned into something that all of the really Smart People knew Trump was dead wrong about was the impact of China on labor. Not long ago, most neoliberals (who I count myself among) were pretty confident that expanded trade was such a net positive that it should be thought of as mostly an unmitigated net good. The recent Autor paper (link) makes clear that there's a lot more to this story and that there really were a lot of American losers as a result of the labor shock.

Circling back to the actual topic, I want to focus on this sentence for a moment:

...but just think about it for a second - we basically got goods and services for free since we paid for them in dollars that we can print up anytime, and never had to return the favor by supplying goods or services ourselves that they had to pay for using those dollars.

This isn't true. Changing the money supply for your currency in a world where that currency is traded in international markets isn't free. Even if that specific iteration of the currency never returns to your nation, there is an impact. Put another way, no, you can't just print money and buy things with it indefinitely with zero negative outcomes.

Finally, you realize that I despise Trump and populism, right?

[Macaquerie]

Let's say your perspective is wholesale correct and there are indeed zero economists that disagree (implausible as that final claim is). If that's the case, shouldn't the United States simply create an additional $30 billion/year and transfer it to impoverished nations? That seems like the obvious implication. If workers sending currency abroad has no negative impact on anyone in the United States and has a positive impact on the receiving country, why be so evil as to deny them access to that additional currency?

The whole reserve currency gravy train sort of relies on us maintaining a sensible monetary policy so that the dollar remains a stable medium of exchange that foreign countries want to hold, if that stopped then they could just switch to using something else. Sure the trade deficit would go certainly go down in that case, but of course what that really means is that we can longer keep getting free stuff from the rest of the world and actually have to provide something in return for it.

This isn't true. Changing the money supply for your currency in a world where that currency is traded in international markets isn't free. Even if that specific iteration of the currency never returns to your nation, there is an impact. Put another way, no, you can't just print money and buy things with it indefinitely with zero negative outcomes.

Finally, you realize that I despise Trump and populism, right?

Yeah it's not something we can abuse to no end and not feel any ill effects from, but then again, that isn't likely to actually happen any time soon. We certainly benefit greatly from the dollar's privileged status and will continue to do so unless some idiot comes around preaching some inane mercantilist ideas.

And also, I'm sick and tired of hearing people bitch nonstop about trade with China. If you ever actually go there, you'd see right away that they are in no way winning against the US. The cities are polluted nightmares, the people are miserable, and even that characteristic Asian cultural trait of trying to sweep anything and everything negative under the rug can't hold back the shitstorm that they're about to endure.

[alexw]

Let's say your perspective is wholesale correct and there are indeed zero economists that disagree (implausible as that final claim is). If that's the case, shouldn't the United States simply create an additional $30 billion/year and transfer it to impoverished nations? That seems like the obvious implication. If workers sending currency abroad has no negative impact on anyone in the United States and has a positive impact on the receiving country, why be so evil as to deny them access to that additional currency?

If you did that you would give people a claim on things created in America. I.e. Americans will be working to give things way for free.

But in using this argument you are fundamentally miss-understanding what is going on and conflating two very different things. The person (the immigrant) with those dollars in the prior example already has a claim on things created in America since he or she already has those dollars. Transferring those dollars outside the US does not alter that claim. The claim already exists and will continue to exist wherever those dollars go. So unless you confiscate those dollars an American at some point will be working to fufill that claim (unless those dollars never return but are used by foreigners just to trade with one another but to simplify lets assume that doesn't happen). Thus in this context the location of those dollars is irrelevant. It is just that you think it matters without understanding what is going on.

[Spectral]

And also, I'm sick and tired of hearing people bitch nonstop about trade with China. If you ever actually go there, you'd see right away that they are in no way winning against the US. The cities are polluted nightmares, the people are miserable, and even that characteristic Asian cultural trait of trying to sweep anything and everything negative under the rug can't hold back the shitstorm that they're about to endure.

I don't think I'm bitching about trade with China. I've personally benefitted from it pretty noticeably. It's obvious (as you say) that life is better in the US than in China. My only point with regard to China is that the labor shock had negative effects on American labor markets that some have been quick to insist didn't happen.

- - - Updated - - -

If you did that you would give people a claim on things created in America. I.e. Americans will be working to give things way for free.

But in using this argument you are fundamentally miss-understanding what is going on and conflating two very different things. The person (the immigrant) with those dollars in the prior example already has a claim on things created in America since he or she already has those dollars. Transferring those dollars outside the US does not alter that claim. The claim already exists and will continue to exist wherever those dollars go. So unless you confiscate those dollars an American at some point will be working to fufill that claim (unless those dollars never return but are used by foreigners just to trade with one another but to simplify lets assume that doesn't happen). Thus in this context the location of those dollars is irrelevant. It is just that you think it matters without understanding what is going on.

The bolded simplification is flatly false. Assuming things that are false for the sake of building economic models is how we get models that are just plain wrong. This isn't just a "simplification", but the underpinning of your entire argument.

It is just that you think it matters without understanding what is going on.

I honestly don't know if I've ever seen you appear in a thread where you don't insist that you're just better informed than whoever you're arguing with. As in previous topics where we've covered that particular point, it's flatly not accurate - I'm also an educated, informed person. Someone not sharing exactly the same view that you do doesn't actually mean that they're just ignorant. If you had learned that tidbit somewhere along the line, you'd probably be a better person.

[Macaquerie]

I don't think I'm bitching about trade with China. I've personally benefitted from it pretty noticeably. It's obvious (as you say) that life is better in the US than in China. My only point with regard to China is that the labor shock had negative effects on American labor markets that some have been quick to insist didn't happen.

I don't think anyone is claiming that free trade with China was universally positive for all parties involved. But the reality of the situation is that ultimately we were going to have to reorient our economy to more high-tech and high-value production at some point and if jobs weren't going to China they'd just be going to India or Vietnam or some other underdeveloped country. Some workers haven't been able to make that transition and have suffered, but plenty more have done very well for themselves and the solution is to keep pushing to bring everybody up to the new standard rather than trying to bring back the good old days.

And trying to get back on topic here, I think that the rhetoric from Trump and others of his ilk is somewhat indicative of a kind of entitlement we've developed due to how thoroughly we've dominated every aspect of the global economy for the last century. We feel like we're getting shafted if a policy we enact isn't a universal and unambiguous benefit, which given the nature of such things is basically all of them. We don't so much have rivals these days as we have annoyances, China is a reasonably acceptable target due to their sheer size but going after countries like Mexico and Iran for supposedly screwing us over just comes across as unbelievably petty and deluded.

[Deleted]

And also, I'm sick and tired of hearing people bitch nonstop about trade with China. If you ever actually go there, you'd see right away that they are in no way winning against the US. The cities are polluted nightmares, the people are miserable, and even that characteristic Asian cultural trait of trying to sweep anything and everything negative under the rug can't hold back the shitstorm that they're about to endure.

The problem with free trade is that it benefits everyone, but hurts specific people.
Outsourcing to china lowered prices for everyone, but the people who got unemployed lost way more than they gained.
What is societally a good policy is not necessarily an individually good policy.