Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: It's "Reality Time"

Posted 7 years ago on May 27, 2012, 1:07 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Continued conversation...

I've never even heard of that project supposedly everyone wants. But whatever it is, I bet environmentalists are against it and whatever place you plan on taking the water from probably isn't too enthusiastic either.

Mexico was a corrupt crud-hole BEFORE trade liberalization. Trade is part of China's EMERGENCE from corruption and autocracy.

I knew you'd need more than one try to get it right. It's there because WE LET IT IN THE COUNTRY. The typical liberal mayor in the U.S. today simultaneously supports sanctuary AND "living wage" laws. It's fun to watch them be both in favor of the CAUSE OF a problem as well as its proposed solution. But, of course, the problem is an over-supply of the no-skill labor market that can't be repaired by government attempts at price fixing. That's why they fail.

It's fine to be in favor of open borders. But then don't bitch about the OBVIOUS consequences, the sort of consequences all but the willfully ignorant can see in places like L.A.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Actually this is a false argument. It isn't the presence of immigrant workers or the provision of sanctuary to immigrant workers that cause wage suppression. It is allowing these things while keeping them illegal. This mixture creates the market for exploitable labor. If we had an immigration system that worked properly, immigrant workers wouldn't have to leave their families behind so they may sneak in for work then send the profits to another country, they could just move here with their families and contribute to the economy just as we all do. They already pay into a Social Security system that they will never see the benefits of.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

I think we'd all be better off if each country could offer decent jobs to their own people.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

I'm curious to know how long you think that will take to happen and should we sit on our hands until such time?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

If we started a global New Deal, beneficial effects would begin immediately.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Unfortunately, it's hard enough to get traction for such an idea on a state level, let alone a federal or global level. I like to debate ideas that have the potential of success so that when politicians and lobbyist do peek in on these forums from time to time, there are realistic ideas and proposals they can digest. There is no better way to obstruct the realizing of a goal than to set the goal out of reach.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Politicians do discuss the ideas I mentioned, Vladimir Putin, for example, was recently talking about the train tunnel or bridge that would connect Siberia to the tip of Alaska, making train travel between North America and Asia possible.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Do you have any information that would indicate the these things are more than talk, have enough support, how long implementation would take, timeline of results? Because there is such supporting data for raising wages relatively soon.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

No, I don't have that detail of information, but here are some articles about it:

Russian Railways Head Yakunin Again Calls for Bering Strait Tunnel http://larouchepac.com/node/22334

Bering Strait Great Project on the Agenda This Year http://larouchepac.com/node/15587

Russian Far East Regions Plan for Railroad to the Bering Strait http://larouchepac.com/node/13065

Russia Offering Greece a Station on the Eurasian Land-Bridge http://larouchepac.com/node/19732

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Export green technology - not billions of dollars that the regimes use for their personal retirement fund.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

The last time that Mexico saw actual economic growth was under the Presidency of José López Portillo (1976-1982), and his Global Plan for industrial development. His government was committed to technological advance, to using Mexico's oil to trade for technology with the United States and other nations. It was committed to industrialization, to nuclear energy, to city-building; and it was committed to stopping speculation within and against Mexico, and replacing the global system of speculation and free trade with one committed to production and justice. And it imbued the nation with a sense of "can-do" optimism that it has not seen since.

Free trade was a mixed blessing for China. Most of what they got out of it was sweatshop labor. Now, their goal is to move towards a more internal economy with better paying jobs. They would have been better off with FDR's plan to export high tech products to them for infrastructure development.

I'm not in favor of open borders, I just think there are better ways of solving the problem.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Let me put it this way, most people who hear about NAWAPA like the idea, but yes, environmentalist do oppose it. The water would come from Alaska, where 50% of our fresh water now falls and flows off into the ocean without being used.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

What about Niagara Falls? I mean why one huge boondoggle of a project. When there are so many dammed rivers. that could be tapped to pipe water to needy areas. Just need to clean up/out industrial waste.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

Don't know much about Niagara falls, what is supposed to be wrong with it?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Nothing - just has billions of gallons of water falling over a scenic falls.

There is fresh water everywhere running down rivers making it's way to the ocean.

Why have one ginourmous environmentally unfriendly project when you could have thousands of smaller less impacting projects. Less expensive quicker and easier to do.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

There is an "economy of scale" that is attained from bigger projects.

Also, I'm not convinced that it would cause more damage than the benefit it would provide. Once the water was brought to the central US desert and used in agriculture, it would evaporate and be distributed around the US as rainfall.

It would have a beneficial impact on ecosystems throughout the US, both wild and agricultural.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

that's quite a resource

how much is melt off?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

I'm not really sure, I would guess quite a bit.