He thinks the world economy is a zero sum game. That is a game in which the size of the pie is fixed and if someone gets more of the pie, someone else gets less. That is what he thinks Europe has done to the US, has eaten some of the pie that should rightfully have been ours.
In fact, the pie can grow, and even economic rivals can cooperate to helpt the total pie grow so that both are better off. The US-EU economic relationship has on the whole been this sort of success story.
Trump also thinks that there are a limited number of possible jobs, and that if some people fill those jobs, they are taking them away from others. But the labor market is also not a zero sum game, an idea called the “lump of labor” fallacy. That is why he resents immigrants, who he alleges are taking jobs. In fact, the number of jobs can grow. And the evidence is precisely that immigration causes economic expansion and an increase in the number of jobs. Small businesses expand when there is more labor available, which benefits everyone.
Zero sum game ways of thinking are extremely dangerous. They are first of all simply incorrect. Second, they promote conflict, because instead of realizing that everyone can win, they emphasize inflexible competition (in Trump’s case, on racial bases, feeding his fascism).
“More often than not the questions are framed in a way that’s related to being repressive towards immigrants. It’s worth remembering that numbers have to be interpreted, and it’s also about what kind of political interest there are in using the stats, how those stats are read. Stats are in themselves neutral, they have to be interpreted,” he emphasizes.
“If you really want to deepen understanding in this area you have to consider what the stats are and also what they’re going to be used for. Are they going to be used to better locate people without residence papers, for example? To track down migrants and their kids? Or are they going to be used to improve how the police act, and to create a less discriminatory police? It’s very complicated, and more often than not the discussion in the area in Sweden is too simplistic,” he concludes.
Correcting Bolt’s BS is a full time task because there is so much of it (ODT)
Asylum applications in 2016 dropped to about 29,000.
Sweden used to grant permanent residence permits to individuals granted asylum. The legislative changes in mid 2016 began restricting residence authorization by granting temporary permits and putting more requirements in place for permanent permits.
What about claims linking new arrivals and crime?
“In general, crime statistics have gone down the last (few) years, and no there is no evidence to suggest that new waves of immigration has lead to increased crime,” Selin said.
Generally, there’s a certain over-representation of people with immigrant background in crime statistics, but that tends to be closely related to high levels of unemployment, poverty, exclusion, low language and other skills, Selin said. “Swedes with these characteristics are also overrepresented in crime statistics,” he said.
If we look specifically at sex offences, which the Fox News segment highlighted, there were 18,100 sex offenses reported to the police in 2015, down 11 percent from 2014, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
“The act of ripping children away from their parents is nothing new for the United States. Separating children and their families to ‘kill the Indian to save the man’ by sending Native children to boarding schools, and doing it in the name of religion, is one generation removed from my family,” wrote Peggy Flanagan on Twitter. Flanagan, White Earth, is a candidate for lieutenant governor in Minnesota. “Trump’s ‘zero tolerance policy’ is nothing more than a clear violation of human rights. We must learn from history. We must stand with immigrants and refugees.”
Independent Senator Fraser Anning has frequently used Twitter to campaign against those migrants and asylum seekers he claims come to Australia “for a life of permanent handouts”.
Senator Anning, who represented Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party until January 2018, has also praised Turnbull Government plans to tighten eligibility for welfare payments for recently-arrived migrants.
the rich get richer, the earth dies, common people bicker and argue about Patriarchy and marriage rights while everything burns around us. And all the while the press declares this as progress and trumpets changes in laws about marriage, and discriminating for women (and against men) as signs of progress. The world is being destroyed, families are being destroyed, debt is growing, congestion is growing, the environment is being destroyed, and men are being pushed out of work, becoming more and more sidelined in society. Families are falling apart and people becoming more frustrated, more angry and more violent. Yet amongst all this discord it is declared that there are signs of social progress. What a bloody mess! And who can we turn to now? The union movement has almost been crushed by neo-liberal forces, or sold out to growth, and it too has been directing resources into the new ‘left’ agenda.
Both sides taunted each other from across the street, with the left-wingers holding signs saying “fight racism” while the right-wingers carried banners saying “let the right ones in”.
The prospect of constant sniping from Tony Abbott on migration is more proof of the lust for destruction within a federal Coalition that is struggling so badly to offer the “stable government” it promised at the last election.
No issue has the power to divide Australians like a call to turn away migrants. Anxiety about population growth is a force that cannot be contained once it is unleashed. Knowing this, the political leaders of the past agreed on bipartisan policy for decades.
The implications for Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership are plain. Abbott used energy policy to create constant friction within the Coalition last year and is using the population debate to intensify those tactics this year.
This is an irresistible issue for the conservative base but it could break the settled bipartisan approach to migration. What hope is there for an agreement in Canberra when the governing party cannot agree with itself?
From employment to infrastructure to housing affordability, Abbott should take a hard look at his own policy before attacking those of others
Abbott’s not problem solving for the nation he’s problem solving for himself and it really ahs more to do with the game of politics rather than anything else. There is nothing here that hasn’t been pioneered by his Murdoch advisers in America like Roger Ailes the creator of Fox News to attention grab and Abbott has turned to the full package to appeal to the One Nation voters and ALP doubters as he did once before in Australias most historic fear campaign on everything in 2008. He is afterall a one trick pony. ( Old Dog)
“some on the right of the political spectrum have invested their faith in a crude form of populism which derives its momentum from explicit and coded attacks on minorities whether defined by sexuality, race or religion.”
Student and 457 visas
Former prime minister Tony Abbott wants Australia to cut its immigration intake to what it was under the Howard government.
He told an internet radio station on Tuesday afternoon that “we’ve got to get the numbers down, and get them down very significantly”.
Changes in Australia’s immigration sector were significant under Mr Howard, but not because his government kept the permanent intake — now at 190,000 visas per year — low.
However the latter years of Mr Howard’s prime ministership delivered significant increase to net overseas migration as a proportion of the population.
Chart showing large growth in permanent visas granted annually under Howard.
By the time of the 2007 election, his government had doubled the permanent intake.
Billions of taxpayer dollars were handed to the private contractors running Australia’s offshore detention centres without adequate authorisation or value-for-money assessments, the Commonwealth auditor has found.
Warning: you are now entering a politically incorrect zone. Australia is in the middle of an honest discussion, fuelled by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. Previously, Australia’s immigration policy has been based on a complex, rather muddled process where immigrants from all over the world joined the so-called “most successful and harmonious multicultural nation in the world”.
This week’s act of political leadership rejecting racist immigration policy is commendable, and an important marker for multiculturalism
Manus – Australia’s dirty policy deal finally comes unstuck
The New York Times has run a full-length op-ed in its Monday edition which labels Australia’s offshore refugee detention policy as cruel and dehumanising. Regular columnist Roger Cohen wrote that Australia’s treatment of refugees “follows textbook rules for the administering of cruelty”.
Peter Dutton today displayed either the worst case of cynicism I have seen in politics – which, believe me, is saying something – or a sad tendency towards self-delusion. Another refugee has set themselves on fire. Take a moment to consider the first word of the previous sentence. Another. This time it was a young Somali woman, Hodan Yasi. This time.
When most of German society along with our chancellor Angela Merkel declared “refugees welcome” last summer, I was grateful, and – unusually for a left-thinking German like myself – proud of my country. Of course, it was always clear that this gesture was going to present a whole bunch of challenges. After discussing the administrative challenge (“Can we manage this”), we directly slipped into another one: the fears we might have about different cultures and habits.
The United Nations has postponed a planned visit to Australia because the federal government has failed to guarantee no one would be charged or intimidated for talking to its special rapporteur about asylum seekers and migrants.
The government has ceased processing citizenship applications from boat-arrival refugees entitled to become Australians, leaving hundreds in limbo.
Australian Border Force commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg has conceded that the initial press release announcing Operation Fortitude was a “clumsily translated” statement accidentally sent from the 1930s.
“It did come across as a little abrupt. It’s always hard to translate these things perfectly from the original German,” Mr Quaedvlieg said.
Operation Fortitude – now cancelled – would have seen Border Force officers stopping people to question them about their visa status, with officers patrolling Flinders Street Station and other prominent border crossing points.
But there was an immediate backlash, with many claiming it was not realistic for people to carry around visa papers at all times. A spokesperson for Border Force agreed. “An armband or a small badge sewn onto a person’s clothing identifying their visa status would be much more practical for everyone involved”.